MONUMENTA SREBRENICA

Research, documents, testimonies

BOOK 1.

SREBRENICA THROUGH CENTURIES PAST

A.Dozic, E. Mutapcic, R. Djedovic

SREBRENICA THROUGH CENTURIES PASTAdib Dozic, Prof. PhD

Edin Mutapcic, Ass. Prof. PhDRusmir Djedovic, MSc.

Reviewers:Enver Halilovic, Prof. PhD.

Jusuf Ziga, Prof. PhD.Anita Petrovic, MSc.

Editor: Rusmir Djedovic, MSc.

English translation by: Lemana Bajrektarevic, BA

Lector: Nihada Ibrisimovic, BA

Public:Institution Institute for the Protection and use of cultural, historical and natural

heritage of the Tuzla Canton

Press: OFF-SET Tuzla

Printing: 500

Tuzla – Srebrenica 2012.

ISSN 2233-162X

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................................ 5Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7

Edin MUTAPCIC, ASS. PROF. PhD, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE TOWN OF SREBRENICA IN THE MIDDLE AGES ..................................................................... 11

Adib DOZIC, PhD.,SREBRENICA TOWN MOSQUES ........................................................................... 37

Rusmir DJEDOVIC, MSc. URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF SREBRENICA FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY ......................... 57

Adib DOZIC, PhD, GENOCIDE IN SREBRENICA PARADIGM OF BOSNIACIDE ............................ 87

APPENDICES

Enver IMAMOVIC, PhD, SREBRENICA AND ITS SURROUNDINGS DURING THE ROMAN PERIOD ............................................................................................ 103

Tatomir VUKANOVIC, SREBRENICA IN THE MIDDLE AGES ................................................................ 133

DOCUMENTS

Kemal NURKIC, M.Sc. SREBRENICA REGISTERS IN THE TUZLA CANTON ARCHIVES AS HISTORICAL SOUCES FOR THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP ....................... 167

Edited by: Dzevad MAHMUTOVIC, phd JUDGEMENT FOR GENOCIDE IN RADISLAV KRSTIC CASE ........................ 173

5

Preface

Srebrenica as a social, historical, cultural and civilizational concept, is a universally known global symbol. Here we are mostly referring to the concept of Srebrenica as a place of the most recent occurrence of genocide in Europe.

For the above-mentioned reason, there is a social and scientific justification for an extensive research and publishing project which would contribute to a comprehensive illumination of the present global symbol which is known to us under the name of Srebrenica.

Therefore, a group of researchers gathered around the Institute for the Protection and Use of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Tuzla Canton from Tuzla [Zavoda za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona iz Tuzle], and the Institute itself launched the project of publishing an edition under the name Monumenta Srebrenica. The edition of Monumenta Srebrenica will be published at regular one year intervals in the form of separate books – monographs – collected papers. The first edition will be printed in 500 copies and over 300 pages. The entire text will be available in two languages, Bosnian and English.

This edition opens with a special book consisting of a collection of several author papers written by Adib Dozic, PhD, Edin Mutapcic, PhD, assistant professor and Rusmir Djedovic, MA, which provide a basic overview of the cultural and historical development of Srebrenica.

In addition to the contributions mentioned above, this book also contains other research appendices and documents, which deal with the development of Srebrenica and the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica towards the end of the 20th century.

A book entitled Srebrenica through the centuries past, through relevant scientific contributions and documents mentioned above, offers the truth about the basic moments in the historical development of Srebrenica and its surroundings.

In scientific and methodological terms, BOOK ONE entitled Srebrenica through centuries past, should, among other things, serve as an introductory to other and more explicit research.

In the following books in the series, the term area of Srebrenica will be used to refer to the entire Bosnian central Podrinje. Consequently, in addition to the municipality of Srebrenica, the territory of the respective municipalities of Bratunac, Milici and Vlasenica will also be researched.

Authors

7

Introduction

Srebrenica is a town, a municipality in historical and geographical respect and a region, located in Bosnian Podrinje, that is its central part.

Srebrenica, not only in terms of geography, but first and foremost, in social, historical, cultural and civilizational terms, today is a globally known symbol.

There are several important reasons that made it such.First of all Srebrenica is a well-known mining center of Bosnia and the Balkans.

This is relative to all historical periods, pre-historic, antique, mediaeval, Ottoman and modern. Mining, in Srebrenica, was pursued by the Romans, Saxons, Bosnians and other peoples who left behind, not only traces of mining business but also traces of social and cultural life of the past centuries.

Rich and heterogeneous geological and tectonic history of the area of Srebrenica conditioned the formation of huge mineral wealth, primarily noble and colored metals. Mineral wealth, from the earliest period, attracted people who wanted to exploit it. This mining exploitation of, first and foremost, the silver ore, lent a recognizable name to this area, Srebrenica and Argentaria.

The mining exploitation in the area of Srebrenica reached its peak in the Roman and mediaeval periods. At that time, Srebrenica was among the most famous mining and economic centers of the vast Roman Empire and the Balkan Peninsula.

From ancient times, through the Middle Ages and the Ottoman period, Srebrenica was also an important urban center for the larger area. As early as the antique period, in the area of Srebrenica, two large and significant urban and cultural centers of the Roman Empire were developed. Those were the famous settlements in Domavia and Malvesiatium. Each of these settlements, two millenniums ago, had a population of several tens-of-thousands, numerous urban and cultural facilities.

During the Middle Ages, on the site of the present-day settlement of Srebrenica, a significant urban agglomeration with numerous urban and cultural facilities, was developed. These include: mine, square, mediaeval fortress, panadur [trade fair], monastery, church...

Also, during the Ottoman rule, Srebrenica was an important urban and cultural center. This is especially true for the period of the 17th century when the town of Srebrenica was experiencing its golden age.

According to some sources, in the area of Srebrenica there are as many as 48 medicinal springs, which were registered as a cure in the medical encyclopedias all around the world. The most famous is the spring of Crni guber [Black Guber], whose medicinal properties are being compared to those of the most important mineral springs in Europe. Only the following, of numerous mineral springs with medicinal properties,

8were researched: Kozna voda, Mali Guber, Sinusna voda, Ljepotica, Ocna voda, Mala and Velika Kiselica.

Medicinal properties of these springs contributed to the development of a notable healing tourism.

Multiethnicity and multiconfessionality of the area of Srebrenica is also one of the world-renowned features of this area. Since the periods of prehistory and antiquity, this was the area where different peoples, religions and civilizations could be encountered. This trend continued in the ensuing historical periods. All this made Srebrenica a constant and harmonious meeting point of different cultures and civilizations, until the events in recent times.

The crime of genocide was the event that made Srebrenica the center of attention of the world public in the late 20th century. Due to this horrible crime, unprecedented in the history of the modern Europe after the Second World War, Srebrenica became a global symbol of suffering and mass murder.

Srebrenica was also a UN safe area, where, unfortunately, in 1995, an unprecedented crime of genocide was committed.

Today, Srebrenica represents a historical example of the endeavor of the Bosnian people to overcome the troubles of the past and restore the multiethnic and democratic social reality, which, in the area of Srebrenica, as well as the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a rule of life, was present for more than twenty centuries. The above-mentioned, briefly put, reasons provide a social and scientific justification for the launching of an extensive research and publication project.

Due to its global importance, its rich history and especially after the genocide committed against Bosniaks of the ‘UN safe area’ of Srebrenica in 1995, it is necessary to research from the scientific point of view its history without the influences of the ideological stereotypes and prejudices, in order to, on the foundations of scientifically established truth, help restore co-existence, trust, understanding and tolerance, which for a short period of time stopped existing among the citizens and peoples of Srebrenica, to the state that they were during its two- millennium long history.

There are many scientific papers on Srebrenica, but, regardless of that, the history of Srebrenica and its surroundings, both political and cultural, is not fully researched and complete. Many scientific papers, first of all, as regards the political history of Srebrenica, were written under the influence of national hegemonic ideologies and as such, they give a rather wrong idea about Srebrenica and its political, legal and cultural status. Some of the topics, especially those from recent history of Srebrenica were not scientifically elaborated, which suggests, that there is an essential scientific need to research and publish them.

Rehabilitation of the scientific approach to the issues mentioned above, free of any kind of ideological burden and need for unargumented putting out of facts in the defense of personal ethnicum at any cost and the expense of others, can be considered one of the main aims of this scientific research. Also, opening up of a dialogue, exchange of experiences, presentation of the results of the research and the opinions of notable experts in the area of social sciences as regards the topic of this research, represent the expected, but also desirable outcomes.

9Thus conceived research inevitably leads to future cooperation, not only between

scientists but also institutions. It enables the Institute as an institution of special importance open up new horizons for cooperation with the institutes and institutions outside Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the aim of further research of the issue mentioned above.

This sort of research project aims at the study of the history (political and cultural) and the present (sociological, demographic, ethnological analysis) of Srebrenica and its surroundings. The expression ‘surroundings of Srebrenica’ stands for the central Bosnian Podrinje which encompasses the area of the present-day municipalities: Bratunac, Milici, Vlasenica, Visegrad and Zvornik.

The aim of the project is the launching and continued publication of the scientific edition which will from different points of view: historical, sociological, anthropological, ethnological, demographic and others talk about Srebrenica: about its rich history and social heritage of Srebrenica and its surroundings; about the genocide, its causes, consequences and lessons. Final aim is the understanding of the truth which is the most important prerequisite for the further development of economy, coexistence, tolerance, democracy and eternal peace.

Rich history, heritage and genocide which made Srebrenica a global symbol of suffering, influenced a group of intellectuals and researchers, gathered around the Institute for the Protection and Use of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Tuzla Canton in Tuzla, to launch an edition which will, in a documented and scientific manner, talk about Srebrenica and its history, its rich heritage, and the crime of genocide committed in 1995.

The publisher of this edition is Public Institution Institute for the Protection and Use of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Tuzla Canton, technical scientific institution involved in research, registration, categorization, protection, use, restoration and presentation of all sorts of heritage and inheritance.

In line with the subject of this edition and today globally known term ‘Srebrenica’, the name of the edition is ‘MONUMENTA SREBRENICA’. The subheading reads: ‘Research, documents, testimonies’.

Institute for the Protection and Use of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of the Tuzla Canton, as a scientific institution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, has the personnel, equipment and enthusiasm to lead one such project.

Board of editors of this edition is made of prominent intellectuals, researchers and public and cultural workers.

Members of the Board of editors are mostly men who are known in the scientific circles by their scientific work, and who in their previous work made a certain contribution to the research of Srebrenica and its surroundings. Also, the Institute will hire scientists who are engaged in research of the specific segments of this issue, which

will as a scientific task be recognized by the Board of editors. Researchers, for the most part, will be experts with prominent academic and scientific experience.

Board of editors will contact the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Diaspora, as well as the scientists outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, an attempt will be made, by written and electronic mail, to inform the scientific and interested Bosnian-Herzegovinian Diaspora about the organization, the course of and the results of this research.

Adib Dozic, prof. PhD

11

Edin MUTAPCIC, PhD, assistant professor Law School, University of Tuzla

ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL STATUSOF THE TOWN OF SREBRENICA IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Summary

This paper deals with the organisational structure of the mediaeval Bosnian ‘land’ of Podrinje, as well as the position and role of the ‘region’ of Osat as the integral part of the land in question. Of course, the central role in this paper will be given to the most important administrative and economic center of the given region – the town of Srebrenica. In the historical documents Srebrenica is mentioned for the first time on 16 August 1352. This town represents an important economic center in the life of the mediaeval Bosnian state. In this town, as an important mining and trading center, an important colony of Dubrovnik was developed.. However, due to the weakening of the Bosnian state in the early 15th century and occasional separation from the parent country, economic stagnation and significant demographic changes ensued. This state of affairs lasted until the beginning of the Ottoman rule when, due to stable political circumstances, economic expansion of the town of Srebrenica started. Srebrenica was, of course, a very important administrative regional center of the mediaeval Bosnian state. In the beginning, it belonged to the District of Osat, but later on, Srebrenica, as an autonomous late mediaeval district, became independent. The above-mentioned area of Srebrenica and Osat is located in the Bosnian region of Podrinje (Trebotica). In the complex structure of the feudal organisation of the mediaeval Bosnia, the territory in question was under the patronage of the Duke of Usora. Nevertheless, the specific quality of Srebrenica can also be seen in the significant ruling scope in the given area. Key words: Srebrenica, mining, Osat, Podrinje, Usora

The first mentioning of Srebrenica in the historical documents

In the historical science it is a well-known fact that Srebrenica, one of the largest mines not only in the mediaeval Bosnia but also in the Balkans, emerged near Domavia. The very name of the town indicates that the emphasis was on the production of the noble material – silver.1 In addition to silver, lead was also excavated.

1 Desanka Kovacevic – Kojic, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Veselin Maslesa,

12Srebrenica was mentioned for the first time in the historical sources on 16 August

1352, when two Ragusan mail carriers said that they brought, on Grub Mencetic’s request, a letter to Bevenjutic (Bene de Benuennuta) ‘in Sebernica’.2 Earlier it was believed that the Srebrenica was first mentioned on 15 January 1376. Namely, on that occasion the Republic of Dubrovnik asked its citizen Cvjetko Bogdanovic (Cuetcho Bogunnouich) to settle his debt with the Republic.3

It appears that in the early 15 century Srebrenica had the status of a town, as did all developed towns at the time. Among traders, the Ragusans were the most numerous so a strong Ragusan colony, with a permanent consul at the head, was developed. However, local population in Srebrenica also took part in the trade.4 Since 1389, in this town, we have a mentioning of its customs. Ragusan merchants took lease of ore and customs from Bosnian rulers. Later on, coins were minted in this town.5 In addition to Srebrenica, there was also its stronghold of Srebrenik. It is hard to tell whether the stronghold of Srebrnik existed before the settlement was formed, or whether the stronghold, near this strategically important settlement, was developed, which is often confused with Srebrenik at the foot of the Majevica.6

In regard to previous research of the mediaeval Srebrenica in historical science, we can say that Srebrenica falls in the category of more fully researched towns. On this occasion we will mention only the most important works that stem from the past research of Srebrenica. The first, somewhat more prominent, research of Srebrenica, that is, its surrounding, is the work of Mihajlo Dinic, Srebrenik kraj Srebrenice (1934). The same author pays special attention to Srebrenica in the study Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovjekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni (1955). In the meantime, Tatomir Vukanovic published, under his name, a paper Srebrenica u srednjem veku (1946). In the last few decades, in regard to the research of urban settlements, the precedence is taken over by Desanka Kojic-Kovacevic who dealt with the topic of Srebrenica in several works: Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni (1961)7, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave (1978)8, and two mograph accounts of the history of this town: O domacim trgovcima u srednjovjekovnoj Srebrenici (1995)9 and the most comprehensive research is represented by the work Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek (2010)10. It is also important to

Sarajevo, 1978, (hereinafter: D. Kovacevic, Gradska naselja), p. 18.2 Mihajlo Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, knjiga I, SANU, Odjeljenje

drustvenih nauka, Beograd, 1955, (hereinafter: M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I), p. 48.3 Jorjo Tadic, Pisma i uputstva dubrovacke republike, vol. I (1359–1366), Beograd, 1935, I, p. 320.

See: Tatomir Vukanovic (Vladimir Corovic), Srebrenica u srednjem veku, Glasnik drzavnog muzeja u Sarajevu, Nova serija, Sarajevo, (hereinafter: T. Vukanovic, Srebrenica) 1946, pp. 51-80.

4 D. Kovacevic, Gradska naselja, pp. 40-41; 73.5 Marko Vego, Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1957. (hereinafter: M.

Vego, Naselja), p. 108.6 Mihajlo J. Dinic, Srebrenik kraj Srebrenice, Srpska kraljevska akademija, Glas, CLXI, Beograd,

1934, pp. 183-196.7 Desanka Kovacevic, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Naucno drustvo Bosne i Hercegovine, Djela

18, Odjeljenje istorijsko-filoloskih nauka 13, Sarajevo, 1961.; 8 Desanka Kojic – Kovacevic, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Veselin Maslesa,

Biblioteka Kulturno nasljede Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 1978;9 Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, O domacim trgovcima u srednjovjekovnoj Srebrenici, Zbornik za istoriju

Bosne i Hercegovine, SANU, Beograd, 1995.10 Desanka Kovacevic – Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, SANU, Beograd, 2010.

13mention that, in regard to the transitional period and the establishment of the Ottoman rule in this area, the imperative study is the study of Adem Hanzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku.11

The Drina river as the border of the mediaeval Bosnia

We will first try to find the answer to the question: Why was Srebrenica as the most important economic center mentioned so late in the historical documents? The answer to this question lies in the fact that the restless times of the early Middle Ages pushed the economic urban life aside to a great degree. However, when things finally settled, after the arrival of the Saxon miners, as well as the establishment of trade relations with the Adriatic towns, first of all Dubrovnik, the process of slow economic recovery of urban life in Bosnian towns began. It follows that the towns in northern Bosnia had relatively weak or no communication with the towns on the Adriatic coast by the mid 15th century, and the highest number of sources that provide us with the data on the mediaeval period of the Bosnian history is in the Archives of the town of Dubrovnik. Also, the area east of the Drina and south of the Sava and Danube (today’s Serbia) in state-wise context is the area of interregnum where Hungary, Byzantium, Bulgaria, and many other peoples who played an important role in the great movement had territorial claims. As regards the state-wise claim of the area of Srebrenica, the situation is much simpler. Namely, in the early Middle Ages on the respective Sava (northern) and Drina (eastern) Rivers, borders of the Bosnian state were formed. This is supported by the network of the early mediaeval strongholds which were scattered along the afore-mentioned rivers (to the south of the Sava and to the west of the Drina).12 In addition, this is also supported by the first written documents which give a rather more precise description of the borders in this area. The document in question is Ljetopis popa Dukljanina [The Chronicles of Priest Dukljanin] who writes that Bosnia lies between the Drina in the east, and the Mount Pin (Borova planina) in the west.13 So, Bosnia, in Dukljanin’s Ljetopis, is

11 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975;12 Arheoloski leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, tom 2, Sarajevo, 1988, (hereinafter: Arheoloski leksikon) pp. 47-90.13 Priest Dukljanin says: ‘Surbiam autem, quae et Transmontana dicitur, in duas divisit provincias: unam

a magno flumine Drina contra occidentalem plagam usque ad montem Pini, quam et Bosnam voca-vit, alteram vero ab eodem flumine Drina contra orientalem plagam usque ad Lapiam et ad paludem Lageatidem, quam Rassam vocavit’. (Ferdo Sisic, Letopis popa Dukljanina, SKA, Beograd–Zagreb, 1928, 307). If we accept the opinion of the historiographer, according to whom the mentioned ‘mons Pini’ refers to Borova glava (1290 m), mountain top above Livanjsko polje, it would mean that the Bosnian state also encompassed the territory of Vukovsko, Kupresko and Glamocko polje, which are located among Borova glava and the respective Vrbas, Janja and Pliva Valleys. (Jelena Mrgic, Donji Kraji – krajina srednjovekovne Bosne, Beograd, 2002, 29.). In Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, in the period of the early Middle Ages, the crowning of the King Svetopelek (Budimir) in the General Twelve-day National Assembley which was held in Duvanjsko polje (historiography places it in 885/886). On this occasion Svetopelek received a royal title in the same manner Roman kings did. It was then that he divided his kingdom in two parts: Serbia, which comprised Serbia and Bosnia, with a borderline on the Drina, and Primorje which was divided in two parts: Bijela [White] and Crvena [Red] Croatia. We also have the mentioning of the Slavic book of laws, Metodius. Although Ljetopis does not have any relevant authentic value regarding this period of time, the event in Duvanjsko polje leaves us in suspense (F. Sisic, Letopis popa Dukljanina, pp. 393-401).

14described as a fairly large country which lies among the Drina and the upper Vrbas and the Adriatic divide, with formal government, headed by a ban [viceroy].14 In line with this, as regards the Drina which Srebrenica is near, it is important to point out that the settling of immigrant Slavic groups in the given area led to the formation of the core of the Bosnian state on the western bank of the river, part of which is also Srebrenica with its mine shafts, while the area on the eastern bank of the river in question would remain, as we have already established, a peculiar territorial interregnum which would be claimed by the afore-mentioned regional powers: Bulgaria, Byzantium and Hungary. This latter one will have the most frequent control during the Middle Ages. We cannot ignore important cultural, religious and other influences of the Bosnian state on the east bank of the Drina River.15

We have to point that the role of the mediaeval Bosnia on the east bank of the Drina River was not an irrelevant one. We have rather reliable data on the wars that were waged in this area by the first known Bosnian bans, Boric and Kulin.16 Thus, a Byzantine chronicler, Ivan Kinam, describing a campaign (1150/1151) of the Hungarian army, said: ‘when they reached the Sava, they turned towards the other river by the name of the Drina which springs somewehre above and separates Bosnia from the rest of Serbia. Bosnia is not subordinate to archduke of the Serbs, but the people in it have a separate way of life and administration’.17 It follows that, since the formation of the mediaeval Bosnian state in the first half of the 9th century, as indicated by the recent historiography (scientific contributions of Nada Klaic and Muhamed Hadzijahic)18, the immediate surrounding of Srebrenica was part of the mediaeval Bosnian state.19 After

14 „Regnum Sclavorum“, as mentioned in Ljetopis, is actually Bosnia, and ‘too meek King Budimir’ is actually a Bosnian ruler. In any event, among the data in the Dukljan Ljetopis there was ‘a continu-ous string of chronological point of reference, regarding famous historical events, which happened in the period from the mid 10th to the late 11th century. (Mustafa Imamovic, Historija Bosnjaka, BZK Preporod, Sarajevo, 1997, pp. 24-26.).

15 How powerful Bosnian influences on the right bank of the Drina River were, can also be seen in the large number of stecaks [standing tombstones] on the eastern bank of the Lower Podrinje. The num-ber of standing tombstones in this area is none the smaller than the one on the Bosnian bank of the Drina River. For information purposes only, we mention that numerous sites of standing tombstones were found in the following municipalities on the right bank (today Serbian) of the Lower Podrinje: Bogatic, Loznica, Mali Zvornik, Krupanj, Osecina, Valjevo, Lajkovac, Ljig, Ljubovija, Bajna Basta, Kosjeric, Uzice etc. On this occasion we only mentioned those municipalities that were located north of the Drina bend, south of Srebrenica /area of Osat/ (Sefik Beslagic, Stecci – katalosko-topografski pregled, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1971, pp. 234-238)

16 Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, tom IV, Beograd, 1971, pp. 49-53.; Edin Mutapcic, Ban Kulin – povodom 820. godina Povelje, Ljudska prava, broj 1-4, godina 9, Sarajevo, 2008, pp. 115-131.

17 Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, tom IV, pp. 27-28.18 Nada Klaic, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, Politicki polozaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe

(1377), Eminex, Zagreb, 1994.; Muhamed Hadzijahic, Povijest Bosne u IX i X stoljecu, Preporod, Sarajevo, 2004.

19 In our opinion, appropriate bosina moment for the formation of the Bosnian state is the dissolvement of the Avar Khanate, moment when general predispositions for the autonomous political organization in the South Slavic regions were created. See: Nada Klaic, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, p. 22.; Group of authors, Povijest Svijeta – od pocetka do danas, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1977, p. 307.; The word in Latin denotes a borderline, limes, terminus. This term was invented by the Franks in the 9th century. It is hard to decide whether, maybe, the word mentioned above was invented as the result of the demarca-

15all, this is also indicated in the first mentioning of this area. Namely, the District of Osat, which was first mentioned in the written sources on 12 July 1283, in the documents of the Ragusan authorities on the occasion of the selling of a slave ‘Radosclauuam de Osat’.20 Also, the neighboring District of Trebotic was mentioned almost at the same time in the written sources, and for the same reason, that is the selling of slaves.21 Our claim is also supported by Cirkovic’s inference on slave trade, when he says that the highest ‘number of people sold in Ragusa came from Bosnia’, and that such trade also applies to ’Srem’ as well, while from ’Serbian state territory there was not a single person registered’, as the object of the trade in question.22 From the legal disputes that were settled in Ragusa one can clearly see this Bosnian peculiarity, that is Srem’s peculiarity, the consequence of the strong spiritual influence of the Bosnian Church, because if a sold slave could prove that she was baptized, that is, her Christian background, she would be freed.23 This then, the immediate surrounding of Srebrenica, where two districts existed, Osat (this one lied on both sides of the Drina) and Trebotic, indicates that there was a strong spiritual influence which was a distinctive trait of the entire mediaeval Bosnian state territory. We should also mention the fact that the most important military power in this area, and that was undoubtedly the neighboring Hungary, did not have any kind of control over this area until the early 15th century, as indicated by the Hungarian historian Pal Engel.24

In the administrative system of the organization of the mediaeval Bosnian state, one is prone to infer that Srebrenica and its surroundings, located in the north of Bosnia, belonged to the ‘land’ of Usora. When this land was, from the early 13th century, caught in the process of ‘feudal decentralization’, once united land of Usora (which for a certain period of time as a shared land belonged to heir to the Bosnian throne – viceban) was

tion from the area – the territory of Bosnia – the eastern neighbor of the Frankish kingdom, or maybe for some other reason, and that might be that the land of Bosnia was named after the Latin word bo-sina – which has the same meaning as the word borderline, limes, terminus. But, surely, the Frankish territory did not encompass the area east of the Vrbas and south of the Sava (Marko Vego, Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1982, p. 21. This word was kept in the ‘kertal’ of the saint Victor Masilski of 1246 in France). Bosnia is the central or middle South Slavic land, whose history was, to a great degree, ‘marked by its state continuity’. This continuity is reflected ‘as continuity of the territory and the name Bosnia’, which can be traced back to the early Middle Ages and continues to this day. In the geopolitical and cultural-historical point of view the fate of Bosnia was substantially determined by the division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western which was finally carried out in 395 by the emperor Theodosius. The demarcation line ran along a greater part of the Drina River as the eastern Bosnian border (M. Imamovic, Historija Bosnjaka, p. 23.).

20 Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije, Knjiga II, Zagreb, 1984, p. 275.; 21 Thus, on 25 July 1282 the sellng of goods was Smoletam de Trebotiche. On 26 July 1283, the trade

with Tollisclauam de Trebotich was registered, and on 20 February 1300, the slavery status was lifted for Alegretus de Trebotic (Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije, Knjiga II, p. 179., II, p. 279.; Knjiga IV, Zagreb, 1993, p. 53.). This will be further discussed later on.

22 Sima Cirkovic, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske drzave, Beograd, 1964, p. 76.; Its activity appears in the sources during the 14th century and up until 1437. Thus, the appropriate conditions for the penetra-tion of the Hussite movement in the afore-mentioned areas were created. On this spiritual influence, see: Jaroslav Sidak, Studije o ‘Crkvi bosanskoj’ i bogumilstvu, Zagreb, 1975, pp. 287-290.

23 For further reference see: Mihajlo J. Dinic, Iz dubrovackog arhiva, knjiga III, SANU, Beograd, 1967.24 Pal Engel, Neki problemi bosansko-ugarskih odnosa, Zbornik odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda

za povijesne i drustvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Volumen 16, Zagreb 1998.

16divided into two Usora lands, Usora and Soli (completed in 1225).25 However, in this process, later on, a third ‘Usora’ land – land of Podrinje, was created. We mention all this for the reason that Srebrenica due to its geographical location inevitably beloned to the area, that is the ‘land’ of Podrinje. Namely, this process of the formation of the ‘land’ of Podrinje was completed during the rule of Ban Tvrtko I – in the sixth decade of the 14th century.26

Srebrenica - economic and urban center of the bosnian middle ages

Srebrenica was located in the region of Osat and was the most important center of a larger area. The importance of Srebrenica and the dynamics of the economic life in the area in question led to the economic strenthening of a larger area, which we will address later in the course of this paper. It is precisely for this reason that Srebrenica, as an important economic center, was a rather autonomous administrative district with a strong Ragusan colony.

In a broader context, Srebrenica, as well as entire Podrinje, was within the borders of the land of Usora. This area, quite often, in the mediaeval period produced the Duke of Usora. The area of Srebrenica and its surroundings is the area where Dragisa Dinjicic had all of his important estates. Thus, in a charter dating back from 1400 he is mentioned as a witness ‘from Podrinje’.27 Also, it is a known fact that the Dinjicics accepted the Zlatonosovics, while they were performing the duty of the Duke of Usora, as their lords. Of course, this valuable piece of information corroborates the fact that above them in the hierarchy were the dukes of Usora, which indicates that this and the surrounding area of Srebrenica belonged to Usora.

Data on the number of Ragusan craftsmen, the length of their stay and kinds of crafts they were engaged in, lead to a reliable conclusion that craftwork was a developed economic branch in the mediaeval Srebrenica. Of course, Ragusan craftsmen, through various means, helped the advancements in craftwork. However, the work of the local crafsmen in Srebrenica, as well as other urban settlements, did not leave any visible trace in the written sources, because the local craftwork products were not, as were mining and stockbreeding, the items of trade exchange. Srebrenica, undoubtedly, along with mining and trading, was also an important crafts center.28

We should also mention the fact that there was a Francisccan monastery with St. Mary’s Church, which is mentioned in 1387 and 1514, in Srebrenica. St. Nichola’s

25 Tade Smiciklas., Diplomaticki zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, svezak III, Zagreb, 1905, pp. 242-243.

26 The rise of Podrinje to the status of a ‘land’ was the result of the strengthening of the role of nobility from the region of Podrinje, first of all from the area of Trebotic. Traces of the above-mentioned pro-cess in Podrinje could be seen as early as the eight decade of the 13th century when respective districts of Trebotic and Osat were formed. The result of this is the fact that over time in the region of Podrinje three regions could be identified (early mediaeval districts): Sapna, Trebotic and Osat, while the other most important strategic and economic centers were represented by the towns of: Srebrenica, Zvornik and Kuslat (P. Andelic, Trebotic i Podrinje, pp. 243-268).

27 Grupa autora, Historija naroda Jugoslavije, knjiga I, Zagreb, 1953, (hereinafter: HNJ, I), p. 587.28 D. Kovacevic, Gradska naselja, p. 57.

17Church, which is mentioned in 1395 was in the same town.29 However, in the spiritual sense, in Srebrenica and its surrounding the dominant teaching was that of the Bosnian Church, and near this center there was also an important hiza [house] of this church in L jupskovo (Glubschouo) f r om the ea r l y 15 th c en tu ry.30 Large number of standing tombstones in this area are also indicative of the spiritual influence mentioned above.31

Economic stagnation of Srebrenica in the first half of the 15th century

The situation with Srebrenica as a continuous area of the mediaeval Bosnian state changed after 1410, when Duke Hrvoje handed Srebrenica over to the Hungarian King Sigismund. In our opinion, Duke Stjepan had two reasons for this handover. First, the desire to insinuate himself into the powerful Hungarian king’s good graces, and the second, because, with the Zlatonosovics in the north and the Pavlovics in the south, his temporary rule over this area was impossible to sustain. In any case, the epilogue of this event, in, probably, May 1410, was such that Sigismund pronounced Hrvoje the viceking of Bosnia, and, he, in return, handed over the towns of Srebrenica, Kuslat, Brodar and Susjed in Usora, that is Podrinje. This document unequivocally confirmed that Srebrenica was in Usora.32 Hungarian garrisons were deployed in the afore-mentioned towns during the autumn military campaign the same year. In these new circumstances, Sigismund handed Srebrenica over in July 1411 to the Serbian despot Stevan Lazarevic.33

After it came under the rule of Despot Stevan Lazarevic, a continuous fight for Srebrenica between the despot and the Bosnian kings and high nobility, the fight Ottomans would later join. Probably on this occasion, Sigismund’s skillful diplomacy was headed in the direction ‘divide and rule’, which turned Srebrenica into the object of conflict between the Bosnians and the despot until Stjepan Tomasevic became the head of the Despotate. How unstable the area of Srebrenica was in the period 1410-1458, is probably best illustrated by the fact that in this period of time, according to Jirecek, Srebrenica was once part of Hungary, five times part of Serbia, four times part of Bosnia and three times part of the Ottoman Empire, and it was also 5 years under Ottoman rule continuously, from 1439 to 1444, when the despotate was conquered for the first time. Therefore, the length of Bosnian rule during the Middle Ages in this area was incomparably longer.34 It is precisely this period that marked the beginning of a slow economic decline of Srebrenica, which can definitely be seen in the size of the Ragusan colony in the town. After it came under despot’s rule Srebrenica stopped being

29 M. Vego, Naselja, p. 108.30 M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, p. 34.31 Sefik Beslagic, Stecci – katalosko-topgrafski pregled, pp. 234-238.32 Jozsef Gelcich – Lajos Thalloczy, Diplomatarum relationae Reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hun-

gariae, Budapest, 1887 (hereinafter: Diplomatarium), pp. 193-195.33 Jelena Mrgic, Severna Bosna u srednjem veku – zemlja – istorija – narod, doktorska disertacija, Uni-

verzitet u Beogradu, Filozofski Fakultet, Odeljenje za istoriju, Beograd, 2006 (hereinafter: J. Mrgic, Severna Bosna), p. 116.

34 A. Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, p. 95.

18the object of earlier economic interest to Ragusan settlers, whose idilic times were over, for which they complained to King Sigismund.35

The role of Srebrenica to a great degree depended on the circumstances on the other, neighboring, today’s Serbian bank of the Drina. The control over that area would be established, through meriatal relations, by the son of the Bosnian king Stjepan Tomas, Stjepan Tomasevic. Consequently, the last Bosnian king, Stjepan Tomasevic, was also the last Serbian despot. The center of attention was the citadel Smederevo. On the other hand, Smederevo represented a turning point in the decisiveness of the Ottoman conquest politics towards Bosnia. Namely, as an Ottoman chronicler put it: Neşrî, Bosna kirah ol vakit Semendire’ye hakimdi. Accordingly, he also had under his rule the last line of resistance of this region, the town of Smederevo, whose fall, in 1459, formally removed all traces of the Serbian despotate.36 According to Dursun-bey, the very takeover of Smederevo on the part of the Bosnians, was a reason enough for Sultan Mehmed II to launch a war against Bosnia.37

The very town of Smederevo was handed over to the Ottomans without resistance. The only thing that King Stjepan Tomasevic tried to do on that occasion was an attempt to get Srebrenica in return. Although the sultan was inclined to do so in the beginning, it never materialized after the sultan was informed that the Bosnian king did not pay poll-tax.38 The afore-mentioned fact certainly once again supports our claim that, as regards Bosnian crown, continuously through history, there was a developed consciousness in regard to the defining of the borders on the respective rivers of Sava and Drina, even if it meant giving up the area easily, especially those east of the Drina. It was precisely this incident regarding poll-tax that made Sultan Mehmed II send the Bosnian King Stjepan Tomasevic his emissary, who all but put an ultimatum to poll-tax. After the Bosnian king refused to compromise, the process of conquest of the mediaeval Bosnian state, in 1463, began.39 This sealed the fate of the mediaeval Bosnian domain of Srebrenica, which came under Ottoman rule two years earlier than the parent country, and by this became the overture of the final fall of the mediaeval Bosnian state.

35 D. Kovacevic – Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, p. 19-20.36 Neşrî, Tarihi, Kitâb-i Cihan – Nümâ, II. Cilt, priredili: Faik Reşit Unat i prof. dr. Mehmed A. Köy-

men, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi – Ankara, 1995 (hereinafter: Neşrî Tarihi), p. 737.37 Glisa Elezovic, Turski izvori za istoriju Jugoslovena, Bratstvo, XXVI, Beograd, 1932, pp. 112-117.

‘Smederevo is the dowry of the old despot’s daughter, and as such it was the reason why its conquest was postponed. After that he made a long list of acts contradictory to the contract. There is one more reason, and that is, that this capable-of-evil man became the king after he murdered his father. By sin-ning against his parent, he lost the right to be the leader and the head of state. Victorious sultan solved the issue by asking the Bosnian king to convert to Islam and agree to pay the ransom. But, king, as stubborn as Abu Jahl, declined’.

38 Ve eydürler ki, Kıral Hünkâra el çi gönderip “Serayinik’le bile Semendire’yi bari istibdal ede-lim” dedi. Hünkâr razı oldu. Semendire’yi verdiklerinden sonra hesap ettiler ki, haracından kiralın Hünkâra dahi borcu var. Borcuna tutup, Serayinik’i dahi vermediler. Ve bil-cümle çünkü Semen dire feth olundu; çanlarını yıkıp, kiliselerini mesacit ettiler. Ve Lâz ili tamam ol vakit feth olundu. Bu fetih hicretin sekiz yüz altmış dördünde vaki oldu. İt follows that this was happening in 864, which covers the period from 28 October 1459 to 16 October1460 (Neşrî Tarihi, p. 737).

39 Neşrî Tarihi, p. 762-763.

19District of Osat

The area of Srebrenica in the Middle Ages, as well as today, was located in the larger area of Osat – which from the early Bosnian Middle Ages had all the characteristics of an autonomous natural-economic entity, scientifically known as a district.

Osat is a part of Podrinje bordered by the Dri njaca basin to the west and north, and the Mount Javor slopes – to the south. The entire area – with confluences of seven to eight smaller tributaries of the Drina, represents a clear, although not completely homogenous, geographical ensemble. The relics of the described area, that is Osat in a wider sense of the word, are well preserved to recent times and as such they would, to a great degree, correspond ‘to former county or borough of Srebrenica’.40 The district in question was mentioned for the first time in one of the documents in the Dubrovnik Archives. Namely, on 12 July 1283, in one of the documents of the Ragusan authorities the sale of the slave ‘Radosclauuam de Osat’ was registered.41

Historians believe that the text of the famous Tata Agreement, which was concluded in 1426 and which was, unfortunately, parts of which were preserved in rather bad transcripts mentions the town of Tisnica (Thysnicza) in the district of Ozach42, which is actually the name of the borough of Osat.43

This issue in science was mostly addressed by L. Thalloczy, who places all of the names mentioned in the given agreement on the right bank of the Drina (see the Appendix), but nevertheless carefully concludes that it probably refers to the territory located on both banks of the river in question.44

Locality of the towns of Brodar and Susjeda caused a lot of discussion in science due to the running away from the fact that the places in question were located on the eastern bank of the Drina. Anyway, the respective towns of Brodar and Susjed are the bequest of Hrvoje Hrvatinic which he had probably had built during the wars in 1406, 1407 and 1410. On the Drina there were also the estates of the Dinjicics, and that Dragisa, who was mentioned in Sigismund’s Charter, was the district prefect Dragisa Dinjicic, who is mentioned in the Bosnian rolls in 1400, 1420 and 1421, and in 1424 he was in Srebrenica. Halap – probably Ivan de Halap, who, in 1415, with ‘other

40 Pavao Andelic, Ubikacija oblasti Trebotica i teritorijalno-politicka organizacija Bosanskog podrinja u srednjem vijeku, Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine, Arheologija, Nova serija XXX/XXXI (1975/76), Sarajevo, 1977. (hereinafter: P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 265).

41 Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije, Knjiga II, Zagreb, 1984, p. 275.; 42 Their opinion regarding the word ‘Ozach’ does not reject the possibility that in the course of the

recurring transcriptions the above-mentioned ‘penning’ happened. (P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 265; Hazim Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, Postanak i upravna pod jela, Djelo, Naucno drustvo NR BiH, Odjeljenje istorisko-filoloskih nauka, knj. 14, Sarajevo, 1959. (hereinafter: H. Sabanovic, Bo-sanski pasaluk), pp.135-136.)

43 Ljudevit Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju izvora bosanske historije, K historiji despotske porodice Brankovica, GZM, V, 1893. (hereinafter: Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju–Brankovici), pp.181-184;189.

44 Former Travnik Highschool teacher, Aleksandar Hofer, researching the order of the places in the Agreement from Tata mentioned above, believes that the list ‘starts from the south-west, goes north and then east.’ He points out the following: ‘...Srebrenica, north of which is Osat, and in it, Tisnica, a little further to the north Brodar and Susjed and across the Drina Soko, and next to it, Poljanac from Sokol to Osat.’ (Aleksander Hoffer, Polozaj nekih mjesta u povelji kralja Sigismunda od god. 1426, GZM, V, 1893, pp. 553-554)

20Hungarian high nobles was taken into Turkish or Bosnian captivity, paid a large ransom, and received from King Sigismund proper rewards for his loyal service’.45

Today’s popular conception of Osat is understood in two contexts: a narrower, which corresponds to the Ottoman Nahiye of Osat, and a wider and not completely clear, which encompasses the majority of today’s Bratunac-Srebrenica area. Peculiar ethnological characteristics of Osat are easily observable only in the area of the narrower Osat. It is important, after all, ‘to mention that, as a rule, these pronounced ethnological characteristics are present in the areas which, in ancient times had the status of a district.46 Explanation for this opinion that there was an early territorial and organizational unity of the larger area can be found in its geographical ensamble, and this belief is also encouraged by ‘many other characteristics, its archaic and ethimologically hard-to-expain name, relics in the name and ethnological features of the population which have many analogies in other parts of Bosnia (as well as Usora), then the fact that the formation of other administrative units in this area can be explained rationally’. Ottoman registers from the 15th century, by rule refer only to a narrower district (nahiye) of Osat.47 These borders of Osat in science were first registered by Vladislav Skaric. However, Hazim Sabanovic, by analysing the defters, proved that ‘Skaric’s definition of Osat mostly refers only to the Nahiye of Osat in the Bosnian Sanja k [administrative division]48, and not to the proper mediaeval Osat’. 49 For, according to Sabanovic, Osat is ‘much larger and it encompassed part of the central Podrinje below Srebrenica on both banks of the Drina. Osat, on the right bank of the Drina, belonged to the Despotate, and the one on the left to the Kovacevics’ Land. Consequently, the Ottomans also divided this region in two nahiyes, so that Osat on the right bank of the Drina was part of the Nahiye of Osat of the Qadi of Brvenik in the Sanjak of Smederevo, and Osat on the left bank of the Drina part of the homonymous nahiye in the Kovacevics’ Land, of the Visegrad Qadi in the Bosnian Sanjak.

On this occasion we will also say that, in our opinion, the name of the district/nahiye mentioned above was derived from the unique terrain made by the Drina River in this area – curve (turn) which the given area was named after (pre-Slav. osъtъ > stsl. osьtь > stbos. osatь > Bos. Osat; the root is os-, and the suffix is –ъtъ).50 If we take a closer look in geographical terms, we will see that the area of Osat – which, in the old days, was united under this name into a unique mediaeval Bosnian district, is, actually, on both sides of the great Drina turn (curve) south of Srebrenica.

45 Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju–Brankovici, p.189.46 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 265.47 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 265; H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp.135-136. 48 Vladislav Skaric, Popis bosanskih spahija iz 1123 (1711) godine, GZM, II sveska za historiju i etno-

grafiju, XLII, Sarajevo, 1930, p. 11.49 H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp. 135-136.50 Pre-Slav. osъtъ > stsl. osьtь > stbos. osatь > bos. Osat. The root is os-, and the suffix –ъtъ. Accord-

ing to P. Skok (Petar Skok, Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika, Zagreb, 1972, tom II, p. 568) it means ‘awn ear’. We think that Skok’s explanation in this case is hard to explain, and we believe that the given ethimogical construction from the root os-, and the suffix –ъtъ took place. Fur-thermore, Old Slavic form osь, -i is a feminine noun os. Therefore, it has the base os. We add the suffix –ъtъ. The suffix –ъtъ contains the first semi-vowel (jor) in strong position, which bears stress and it corresponds to a in the Bosnian language. (We would like to thank Amira Hadzagic-Turbic for the help in the ethimological interpretation of the formation of the word Osat.)

21Later on, the Brvenik Qadi was annexed to the Sanjak of Zvornik, but its Nahiye

of Osat remained a part of the Sanjak of Smederevo and was annexed to, first, Uzice, and later on (before 1572) to Valjevo Qadi. Only certain villages in these nahiyes from very early on belonged to the Srebrenica Qadi.51 The problem of the identification of other places which were mentioned in the Tata Agreement is probably hidden in the afore-mentioned52 and historiography persistantly refused to put them on the right bank of the Drina. As regards the Bosnian part of once united Osat, we know that in 1528, ‘the Osat Nahiye belonged to the Srebrenica Qadi’. This means that this nahiye remained a part of the Bo snian Sanjak, and that, from legal and administrative point of view, was detached from the Visegrad and annexed to Srebrenica Qadi in the Sanjak of Zvornik. 53

The town of Srebrenica was an important center of the entire region. In the given circumstances, several important mediaeval settlements were developed near it. Not far from it, there is a settlement of Sase, next to Gradina, the antique Domavia, which is often mentioned in the Dubrovnik’s sources. At times, disputes among the Ragusans were were conducted there, which indicates that they were living and working there on a permanent basis. Historiography also associates the beginning of mining activities in our area with Sase.54 One of the most important residential but also mining centers in this area, which is supported by the importance as well as the origin of the name, is the settlement of Cagalj (German Zagel).55 In Cagalj, in the mid 15th century, a

51 H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp. 135-136. The Nahiye of Osat, in the Sanjak of Smederevo, is first mentioned in 1475 as one of the three nahiyes of the Brvenik Qadi (Brvenik, Rujna i Osat), and Nahiye of Osat in the Kovacevics Land and the Bosnian Sanjak is mentioned as early as1469, then in 1485 and 1489. In this nahiye there was a square Petric on the Drina, but the old town of Durdevac is no longer mentioned. Bosnian Osat, from legal and administrative point of view, first belonged to Pavli and Kovac Qadi, that is the Visegrad Qadi (with the exception of few villages that belonged to the Srebrenica Qadi).

52 Precisely because of the importance of the Tata Agreement, for the determining of the location of certain places, that we give its full text whose account was done by L. Thalloczy: ‘ This Kingdom of Raska, all its rights and privileges, with the exception of and not including the castle of Thysnicza and its surrounding area, which is in the district of Ozachu, also the castle of Zackela, which is in the district of Polanzu, where, at some point, lord Hrvoja built the castles of Brodar and Zomzed, also for-mer lands and district of Dragisa and Halap, with the afore-mentioned castle of Zackel, which due to heir crisis, belonged to our Highness, also the castle of Macho and its surroundings among which the Macho Banat bears the name of, also the land and the district, which used to belong to Radislav, son of Chaste, which came under our royal Highness in the same way, also the district of Byzwa, where the castle actually is, also the districts and counties of Felsewabn and Alsowabn, also the district called Radio, near Abna, as well as the district called Neprizon, the district called Lygz, near and next to the same district of Neprizon, the district called Rabas, the district called Colubara, the castle called Belazena with all its accessories, then the district of Ub, the district called Thalmlabe-meleke, the castle Nandoralba with all its accessoriess, the castle of Calambaz (Golubac) with all its accessories, and other castles, districts, lands, municipalities, towns and villages, which King Ljudevit sought to ennlighten, king of Hungary, our dearest father-in-law of the blessed memory, as well as others during the rule of this Kingdom of Hungary.’ (Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju – Brankovici, pp. 181-184)

53 H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp.135-136.54 Konstantin Jirecek, Trgovacki drumovi i rudnici Srbije i Bosne u srednjem vijeku, prevod Dorde

Pejanovic, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1951 (hereinafter: Jirecek, Trgovacki drumovi), p. 72.55 Namely, caglina [frozen dump of earth] is the first piece of ore, which during the first flushing is

washed down into sluices or troughs; German Zagel, Zägel. (M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, pp. 33-34; Vladislav Skaric, Stari turski rukopis o rudarskim poslovima i terminologiji, Spomenik LXXIX, SKA, Sarajevo, 1935, p. 19)

22Catholic church, for the construction of which a certain amount of money was left by a Ragusan - apresso luogo Strebnize in luogo Zagal che si compie chiesa de S. Nicola, was built. There are other places in the area of Srebrenica which were mentioned in the Middle Ages: Grabovica, Milosevic, Prapratna, Boratove, Jelasse, Jeligne, Pleoponiza, Poredusse, Cherenza, Buzan. Grabovica exists to this day near the Drina, east of Subin, Cherenza is undoubtedly Hranca in the immediate surrounding of Peciste.56

In central Podrinje, there was also L jupskovo , known s ince t he ea r l y 15 th c en tu ry a s a c a r avan s t a t i on and t he cen t e r o f t he Pa t a r enes w i th t he i r ‘ house s ’ : ‘domus christianorum, Ruxin patarino ad Glubschouo, Glubschouo ad patarenos, locus patarenorum in Glubschouo, ad Glubschouo ad patarenorum contratam’. The site of Ljupskovo can only be approximately determined. It was near Srebrenica, which is indicated by a Vlach contract dating back from 1413, where he says that he will lead a caravan ad viagium in Srebernizam and that the goods will be taken ad Glubschouo ad domos Radoychi. According to another contract with the Vlachs, we learn that it was located in the region of Dragisa Dinjicic - usque in Glubschouo in contrata Dragisini. Ljupskovo, even under Ottoman rule (1501), was the place that exported lead and glaze to Dubrovnik. We can determine the approximate location of Ljupskovo indirectly; in one of the lawsuits against Dragisa Dinjicic, the plaintiff complained and supra Vladislauum Pur t i , Rodossauum Pur t i , Braichum, Chern i ch , Braichum Parabu t i ch , omnes ex familia seu curialibus dicti Draghisse, who did him wrong in Ljupskovo. Today in Osat there are villages or hamlets Pu r t i c i , K rn i c i Pa r abuc j e . Ljupskovo had to be somewhere near them.57

Somewhere near Ljupskovo was L ikod ra , a l so a c a r avan s t a t i on , bu t one l e s s v i s i t ed . Vlachs the proud ones once in 1405 went along usque in Lochodra (sic) aut in Glubschouo for the same cartage price. It was already established by Jirecek that the road in question was ‘Likodra in the Serbian part of Podrinje’.58 However, the evidence that the Bosnian Podrinje was expanding on the other bank of the Drina, lies precisely in the example of this place which, in one of the agreements, is explicitly placed in Bosnia (‘in Bosnam ad locum vocatum Lichoder’).59

In addition to the above-mentioned evidence, on the expansion of the Bosnian influences to the eastern side of the River Drina, there are also numerous other indicators. What we think here in the first place is the significant concetration of stecaks found on that side of the Drina, which is by no means smaller than the concetration on the western, Bosnian side. Then there is a significant language enclave of the iekavian dialect which was presented in science as a language characteristic of the western Serbia. Finally, there are written traces linked to the respective towns of Brodar and Susjed, as well as numerous places mentioned in the Tata Peace Agreement of 1426. In addition to stecaks, an indication of the significant religious influence of the Bosnian Church in the eastern Drina area is also the initiative directed towards its extermination which happened in the fourth decade of the 15th century.60

56 M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, pp. 33-34.57 M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, p. 34.58 Konstantin Jirecek, Istorija Srba, knjiga II, translated by Jovan Radonic, Beograd, 1952 (hereinafter:

K. Jirecek, Istorija Srba II), p. 278; See note no.125.59 M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, p. 35.60 J. Sidak, Studije, pp. 287-290.

23Among other political centers worth mentioning are the towns of: Subin, which

had its own administrative district, then Klotijevac and Durdevac in Osat, where the status of the political center did not reach any higher level. Late feudal administrative districts (as well as the Ottoman nahiyes) in the area of the early feudal districts and later on the region of Osat are: Srebrenica, Osat, Subin and Ludmer.

Mining, and mining-related craftwork with trade, represented the basis for the development of numerous town-like settlements. In addition to Srebrenica, these include: Petrica, Durdevac, Zabukvica, Mrganovici near Subin, Turija and some others, whose location has not been determined yet.61

‘Land’ of Podrinje

In the complex feudal structure of the Bosnian state, the next level of hierarchy is ‘land’. In the early Middle Ages Srebrenica and Osat belonged to the ‘land’ of Usora, but, in subsequent feudal decentralization of the former region of Trebotic – Podrinje grew into a ‘land’, and consequently the entire area remained under the administration of the Duke of Usora. Precisely this position, of the Duke of Usora, in the late 14th and early 15th century was filled by individuals whose place of origin was Podrinje. However, for reasons of chronological retrospective, we will begin our analysis with the early 15th century. In the given period in the political life of Podrinje the dominant figure is district prefect Ivahn ‘z bratijom’ [with relatives]. He was mentioned as a witness in two charters of Ban Stjepan II, and in both these cases, his position was mentioned, that is his title (district prefect), name, a note that he is the representative of a lineage (‘z bratijom’), and the mark that he is ‘of Trebotic’.15 It is precisely these indicators that confirm that the region of Trebotic was formed very early on, and that it had this status, as we have established earlier, as far back as the first charters of the Bosnian ban Stjepana II. What is hard to understand in this transformation, is the fact that the first man of the region in question had the title of the district prefect. Nevertheless, we have to state that the individualization of this region into a separate land happened due to the estate-owning power of the family of the district prefect Ivahn62, and precisely owing to this, it became dominant in the entire Podrinje.

The greater role of Trebotic, that is estate-owning nobility from this land in the structure of the Bosnian lands at that time, is indicated by the fact that in the second mentioning of this region, of fifteen present witnesses, two were from Trebotic, in the charter of the Bosnian ban Stjepana II issued (after 1329) to Prince Grgur Stipanic Hrvatinic. The witnesses were: five Bosnians, two from Usora and two from Trebotic, and one from ‘of’ Zagorje, Neretva, Rama, Duvna, Donji krajevi and Soli. The witnesses ‘of Trebotic’ are: district prefect Ivahn s bratiom, and Goisav Obradovic, also s bratiom.63

61 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 265.62 P. Andelic calls his family high-noble family from Trebotic. In our opinion the region was not named

after the family mentioned above because the name of this area with the root treb/ot/io/ can be found all over Usora and Bosnia in that period, and even today. (P. Andelicc, Trebotic-Podrinje, pp. 247-249)

63 Ludwig Von Thalloczy, Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im Mittelalter, München und Leipzig 1914. (hereinafter: L.Thalloczy, Studien), pp. 14-15.

24We have already pointed out that it was in the period of the rule of Stjepan II,

that we have compelling evidence that Trebotic was part of Usora. Later on, however, according to the number of witnesses from this area, as well as the latter titles that were given to ‘the witnesses of Trebotic’, we have every right to claim that Trebotic had a higher status than that of a district. It follows, that this was one of the Bosnian regions that belonged to Usora (Zavrsje).64

Our claim is supported by the fact that it was precisely in this area that some other districts were present as well, among which the district of Osat is mentioned in the Dubrovnik’s sources in 1283, and regardless of its early individualization, there were no witnesses from this district mentioned in the charters issued by Bosnian rulers. On the other hand, in the 15th century the place and role of Trebotic was taken by Podrinje. All these facts indicate that due to the most important role of the great nobles from Trebotic, this region, for a long period of time, played a very important role in the political life of the mediaeval Bosnia.

Evidence for this fact can be found if we analyze the position of Ivahn’s son Tvrtko Ivahnic. He appears on the political scene as early as 1333 in the charter of Ban Stjepan II dated 15 February the same year, when the ceding of Ston with Rat and the neighboring islands to the Republic of Dubrovnik took place. He is listed as one of the witnesses (without the title) along with Usora and Sol estate-owners.65

It is important to mention that, probably under the influence of the processes that took place in the south, that is the ‘land’ of Bosnia, the most prominent process of regionalization, took place precisely in the area of the south-eastern Usora, that is the area of Trebotic.66

Consequently, since the time when witnesses from certain counties started appearing in the charters of the Bosnian rulers, the witnesses of Trebotic were also present. However, this was not the time when Trebotic was mentioned in the historical sources for the first time. We have already established that in the late 13th century (that is after 1282) we have three cases of slave trade on record between this area and Dubrovnik. Thus, in effect, the selling of the slave Smoletam de Trebotiche, recorded on 25 Jula 1282 in the files of the Ragusan authorities, also represents the first mentioning of this district in the mediaeval documents.67

We should point out the fact that in the documents of the authorites mentioned above as regards correspondence clearly stated that they were from Bosnia, and they rarely used regional terms. In correspondence, the area of the northern Bosnia was 64 Franz Miklosich; Monumenta Serbica, Spectantia Historiam Serbiae Bosnae Ragusii; Viennae, 1858.

(hereinafter: Fr. Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica), pp. 101-103; L. Thalloczy, Studien, 16-18; M. Vego, Postanak, pp. 151-153; Milos Blagojevic, Bosansko zavrsje, Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, XIV-1, Beograd, 1979, pp. 134-138.

65 T. Smiciklas, CD, X, pp. 77-81; Fr. Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, pp. 105-107; M. Vego, Postanak, pp. 147-149.

66 The name of Trebotic was probably derived from the Slavic word ТΡЪƂ, which means sacrifice (sacrifise). In order to justify this opinion we will point out that in Usora we have an area of Trebave in the north (area between Modrica, Gradacac, Doboj and Gracanica), on the border with the ‘land’ of Bosnia, where a nahiye was formed, and probably a district somewhat earlier, Trebetin (towards Maglaj and Zepce), while in the south we have the region of Trebotic. Both names have the same root: Trebevic, Trebinje et al. This is a very interesting occurrence, which should be more thoroughly researched from the geographical and philological point of view.

67 Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije II, p. 179.

25most often referred to by a regional term, that is Usora (Vsora). We mention these facts mainly for the reason of showing that this area became very early on a regional center i.e. a region. This belief is also supported by the fact that only a year later, that is on 26 July 1283, trade with Tollisclauam de Trebotich68 took place, and on 20 February 1300 Alegretus de Trebotic was delivered from slavery.69

We have already established the role of the high nobility from this area (Trebotic) in the political life of the mediaeval Bosnia. It follows that Tvrtko Ivahnic in the political life of Usora and Bosnia took the role that his father had earlier ‘county prefect Ivahn’. This makes us conclude that it happened after his father’s death. His son, Tvrtko, became almost a constant presence in the political life, and would later on first receive the title of the tepci [steward], and some time later the title of the duke of Usora, which can be seen from his titles:

1353 Ivahn Ivanovic1354 Tepcic Ivahn1357 Voevoda [Duke] Tvrtko and his brother county prefect Novak1366 – 1367 Voevoda [Duke] Tvrtko and z bratiom1374 Vojvoda [Duke] Tvrtko and s bratjomIt should be pointed out that in all these charters the witnesses ‘of Trebotic’ were

not nominally mentioned but they were rather included among the witnesses from Usora. Tvrtko, the son of Ivahn, was awarded the title of a duke probably due to his loyalty to Ban Tvrtko at the time when rebellions in Usora took place at the very beginning of Tvrtko’s rule.70

In the oath of Ban Tvrtko of 1357, he was only mentioned as ‘duke Tvrtko’, and in ban’s charters of 1366, 1367 and 1373 as the duke among the witnesses ‘of Usora’.71

This fact best indicates that, regardless of the very important role of the family in question, as well as their region of Trebotic in the structure of the mediaeval Bosnian state, this region was nominally a part of Usora. This, that it was precisely this Duke Tvrtko who belonged to noble estate-owners from Trebotic, is confirmed by the fact that his son Vlatko Vojvodic Tvrtkovic was in certain charters a witness from Trebotic, and in others a witness from Usora.

In this period the region of Trebotic, as the seat of the duke of the entire Usora land also became its political center, and due to its importance, the name of this region pushed aside the term Podrinje, but, at the same time, it absorbed it.72 It had the same status during the time of his son and heir in the position of Duke Vlatko (Vojvodic).68 Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije II, p. 279.69 Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije IV, p. 53.70 Orbin mentions the rebellion led by Pavle Kulisic. (Mavro Orbin, Kraljevstvo Slovena, Beograd,

1968, pp. 148-149) According to Ancic, the only event in the beginning of Tvrtko’s rule that could be taken as rebellion was the going of the three Stjepanic-Hrvatinic over to the Hungarian-Croatian king domination, in which case the campaign, launched in order to recover the towns of Usora, should be linked to the name of Grgur Stjepanic, who held the estates in Usora from around 1330. (Mladen An-cic, Putanja klatna, Ugarskohrvatsko kraljevstvo i Bosna u XIV stoljecu, Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, Biblioteka, Djela - knjiga 9, Zadar – Mostar, 1997, p. 158; Nada Klaic believes that this was the first conflict between the brothers Tvrtko and Vukac. (N. Klaic, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, pp. 217-222)

71 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 248.72 Jelena Mrgic, Zupe i naselja „zemlje“Usore, JIC, no. 1-2, Beograd, 2000, p. 37. The author reduces

this region to the rank of a district, which we cannot agree with.

26Vlatko Vojvodic is constantly mentioned with the title of the duke in the political

life of Bosnia and Usora probably to his death around 1400. One thing that can be noticed is that in some of the charters he was mentioned as the duke of Usora and, and in others as the duke of Trebotic. This can best be seen from the following overview:73

1380 Vlatko Tvrtkovic Duke of Trebotic1390 Wlatcho duke of Usora1392 Vlatko Tvrtkovic, duke of Trebotic1392 and duke Vlatko of Usora1394 palatinus Vlatko Tribotio1399 with duke Vlatko TvrtkovicBut, immediately after the family Ivahnic-Tvrtkovic died out, around 1400,

the position of the duke of Usora was filled by Vukmir Zlatonosovic, who held the region (contrata) from Zvornik to Srebrenica and on the west near Olovo, while district prefect Dragisa Dinjicic, the witness ‘from Podrinje’, had estates in the surrounding of Srebrenica, in Osat. Thus Podrinje still remained linked to Usora, while the name Trebotic disappeared from the sources, because it overlapped with the term Podrinje.74

Therefore, as witnesses in the charter dated 8 December 1400, when King Stjepan Ostoja gave Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic the town of Hlivno, the following are mentioned: Duke Vukmir s bratijom, and from Podrinje Dragisa Dinjicic. In this charter, the intitulation of King Stjepan ends with ‘... Usora and Sol and Podrinje and also...’.75

This marked the beginning of the political rise of the family Zlatonosovic, which would give birth to dukes of Usora in the ensuing period. However, we have to mention that as early as 1366 Podrinje started appearing in the intitulations of the Bosnian Ban Tvrtko, immediately after the rebellion led by his brother Vukac was crushed.76 It is possible that Tvrtko expressed his gratitude to the estate-owners from Podrinje the same year by way of calling himself ‘master of Bosnia and Soli and Usora and the region of Dol and Podrinje and Hum, thus, for the first time in his royal title, mentioning Podrinje.77 This is also the best evidence that Podrinje and Trebotic constitute a whole – ‘a region’, because the political life of Usora would be dominated by the estate-owners from Trebotic for another three decades. However, it is precisely for the reasons of gratitude for helping Tvrtko in crisis situations, that Podrinje became one of the Bosnian and Usoran lands and would be a constant presence in the ruler’s title in the ensuing period, and throughout this period the estate-owners from Podrinje held the highest positions in entire Usora, as well as Bosnia.78

Thus, after the death of Vlatko Tvrtkovic (Ivahnic), on the political scene of Podrinje, but also Usora, the dominant role was assumed by the Zlatonosovics, who held the estates that were located in central Podrinje. In the early 15th century, they, 73 Duro Surmin, Hrvatski spomenici I, Zagreb, 1898, pp. 91-93; 95-98; Sime Ljubic, Listine o odnosa-

jih izmedu Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike, Zagreb, 1861 – 1891. (thereinafter: S. Ljubic, Listine), IV, 280-282; Fr. Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, str. 220-222; 235-237; P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 248.

74 J. Mrgic, Usora, p. 37.75 Aleksandar Solovjev, Odabrani spomenici srpskog prava (od XII do kraja XV veka), Beograd, 1926,

pp. 136-138.76 M. Orbin, Kraljevstvo Slovena, pp. 148-150.77 D. Surmin, Hrvatski spomenici I, pp. 83-84.78 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, pp. 247-249.

27together with two other estate-owning families, Dinjicic and Stancic, had the dominant role in this area. They also took part in the dynamic events as regards Srebrenica in the 15th century.79 Vukasin Zlatonosovic is mentioned in the sources for the first time in 1399. In King Stjepan Ostoja’s charter, which reinstated some of the earlier benefits that Dubrovnik had, mentioned as one of the witnesses is also Vukasin Zlatonosovic, who had the title of a prince.80

This same year his name was also mentioned in another Ostoja’s charter issued to the Republic of Dubrovnik, by which the Bosnian king declared the land and villages from Kuril to Ston the property of the Dubrovnik. And once again, Vukasin Zlatonosovic was titled as prince.81 Vukmir Zlatonosovic is mentioned for the first time in 1400 in a charter issued by King Stjepan Ostoja, by which King Stjepan Ostoja gave the district of Hlivno to Duke Hrvoje. Among numerous witnesses mentioned, there was also the name of Vukmir Zlatonosovic, also accompanied by a title of duke.82 It appears that this very piece of information reveals the order of birth of the two brothers. ‘The fact that next to Vukmir’s name we have the title of the duke, and only a few months earlier, next to Vukasin’s the title of the prince clearly indicates that Duke Vukmir had to be the oldest of the two brothers.’ Vukasin was mentioned in the sources somewhat earlier, but insignificant period of time (only a few months), but, next to his name, there was only the title of prince and he had that title until Vukmir’s death, when he assumed duke’s honor and dignity.83

After the death of Duke Vukmir in 1424, his brother Vukasin became the Duke of Usora, but he was killed in 1430 during the conflict with King Tvrtko II (1422 – 1433). In the ensuing period those who were calling the shots in Podrinje, as well as Usora, were the Dinjicics and the Stancicis.84

These changes as regards the postion of the duke of Usora clearly indicate that the area of Srebrenica and its surroundings belonged to the patronage of the duke of Usora, and as such it was a part of the Usora (Bosnian) land of Podrinje (map no. 2).

The establishment of the Ottoman rule

Srebrenica, immediately after it came under Ottoman rule, was given the status of nahiye, and shortly afterwards it also became the seat of the qadi.85

Nahiye of Srebrenica was, from very early on, in the Ottoman hands. The final fall of the town of Srebrenica under Ottoman control, in the Ragusan sources was recorded

79 Pavo Zivkovic, Usorska vlasteoska porodica Zlatonosovici i bosanski kraljevi (posljednja decenija XIV i prve tri decenije XV stoljeca), Historijski zbornik, godina XXXIX (1), 1986 (hereinafter: P. Zivkovic, Zlatonosovici), p. 148.

80 Fr. Miklosich, Monumenta serbica, 235-237.; P. Zivkovic, Zlatonosovici, p. 150.81 Lj. Stojanovic, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, I/1, Beograd – Sremski Karlovci, 1929-1934, pp. 420-

423, 422. Vukasin is mentioned with this title in another Ostoja’s charter dated 5 February 1399, by which he confirmed the charter of King Tvrtko I of 1378 to the Republic of Dubrovnik. Stojanovic, Povelje i pisma I/l, 426; P. Zivkovic, Zlatonosovici, p. 150.

82 Fr. Miklosich, Monumenta serbica, 247-250; P. Zivkovic, Zlatonosovici, p. 150.83 P. Zivkovic, Zlatonosovici, pp. 150-151.84 P. Andelic, O usorskim vojvodama, pp. 32-39; P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, pp. 249-251.85 A. Handzic, Tuzla, pp. 52-53.

28on 1 January 1462. The earliest surviving defter of the Sanjak of Zvornik, the summary register no. 171, gives rather basic information about Srebrenica and its nahiye. Since the earliest times, the mine in Srebrenica fell into the category of imperial hases [estates]. It is further said about Srebrenica that it had a solid fortress whose dizdar [fortress commander] and garrison made their living from salary /ulufe/.86

Since Srebrenica was the most important center in Bosnian, as well as entire Podrinje, it is no accident that this town became, immediately after it came under the Ottoman rule (in 1460 or 1461), the seat of the qadi. This qadi, at the time, was an integral part of the Sanjak of Smederevo.87 In the ensuing period, a special mark as regards the belonging of the Qadi of Srebrenica would be left by the establishment of the Sanjak of Zvornik. A decade after the Ottoman takeover of Bosnia, Sanjak of Zvornik was established, which did not exist before 1477, when Zvornik and its surroundings were still part of the Sanjak of Smederevo. The earliest reference to Sanjak of Zvornik dates back to the end of May or the beginning of June 1483, and thus this year is taken as the year of the establishment of this sanjak. Zvornik was, of course, from the very beginning of the takeover of this piece of Bosnian land, the seat of the qadi (around 1460), although it is mentioned in the sources for the first time on 9 October 1477.

The establishment of the Qadi of Srebrenica

Ottoman state, although extremely centralized, primarily due to the size of the territory, had to conduct a certain internal division of its own territory. Thus the empire was divided in beylerbeyliks (pashaliks, eyalets).88 First-level units of local government in the Ottoman Empire were sanjaks. Those were military-administrative territorial units, where under one flag, spahis, from that area under the command of the sanjak-bey or alay-bey, were gathered. Second-level administrative-territorial units within sanjak were qadis. Those were judicial districts of its own kind. The subject matter of our interest is precisely the Srebrenica Qadi, which was established immediately after the Ottoman takeover (in 1460 or 1461). For more than two decades, it was part of the Sanjak of Smederevo, and after the establishment of the Sanjak of Zvornik (not later than 1483), Srebrenica Qadi became part of it.89

According to the registry of the Sanjak of Smederevo of 1476/7, on the Bosnian side it included the following nahiyes: Srebrenica, Subin, Kuslat, Budimir, and on the right side of the Drina, the town of Soko with its surroundings. However, there are no sources mentioning that this qadi from its establishment included nahiyes on the Serbian

86 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje, Tesanj, 2005 (Filipovic, op. cit.) pp. 195-198.

87 A. Handzic, Tuzla, pp. 52-53.88 In the beginning, before the conquest of Egypt (in 1517) the Empire was divided only in two large ad-

ministrative areas known as beylerbeyliks, eyalet or pashalik, and those were: Anadolian and Rume-lian (of Asia Minor and European). After 1517, the number of eyalets increased to nine, and later on, during the rule of Suleiman I, the Lawgiver to forty of which, twenty-six were only in the European part of the Empire. Among them, one of the largest and the widest was the Bosnian Eyalet or Pashalik.

89 Ottoman army commanders who conquered the Despotate towards the end of 1459, and also at the beginning of 1460 Srebrenica, Kuslat, Perin and Zvornik. (M. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva, I, pp. 85-86)

29side: Krupanj, Bohorina, Radevina, Jadar and Pticar, as it was assumed. These nahiyes were most definitely included in the Srebrenica Qadi, that is the Sanjak of Zvornik, possibly after the earliest registry of the Sanjak of Zvornik (1519), and before 1516, when they were not mentioned as part of the Sanjak of Smederevo. Consequently, in the second decade of the 16th century, they became part of the Srebrenica Qadi. But then, all of them, with the exception of Jadar, were mentioned, during the Vlach census of 1528, that is the census of mukats of that sanjak in the third decade of the 15th century, while the Jadar nahiye is mentioned not earlier than 1533.90

Judicial authority in the Ottoman state was performed by a cadi. Although the cadi was, first and foremost, a judicial officer, at the same time, as regards local administration, he was also the only officer of authority in general. The cadi was generally considered a law enforcement officer and the executor of the orders of the central government. In this respect, he supervised the work and actions of all military and administrative authorities and other officers in the area of his qadi, and reported back to the emperor and the vizier.91

This was a completely new institution in the up-to-then Bosnian administrative development. Namely, Bosnian Middle Ages does not have such a prominent and separate role of the judiciary. On the other hand, as regards the territorial scope, we can say that nahiyes replaced mediaeval districts, therefore, the continuity in organization was present, but as regards qadis, we cannot say that there was a continuity of territorial and administrative organization.

However, one piece of information indicates that the area of Tuzla belonged to the Qadi of Srebrenica. Namely, in the detailed register of the Sanjak of Smederevo of 1476/7, in a closer description of the ‘imperial’ Vlachs of the village Drametina, it is said that they lived near Wooden salt works in the qadi of Srebrenica.92

Srebrenica Qadi never encompassed the respective nahiyes of Sabac and Macva, because this area, from 1521 on, was the territory of the Sabac Qadi. Also, this qadi never encompassed the area of the former Srebrenica Banate, because the Zvornik Qadi was established long before the fall of this banate, and when this area was conquered it was annexed to the Zvornik, and not Srebrenica Qadi, as it was usually believed.93

Finally, in the end, we have one exception, and that is that the nahiye from another sanjak, i.e. Bosnian, was annexed to the Qadi of Srebrenica in the Sanjak of Zvornik. Hazim Sabanovic proved that the mediaeval Osat ‘[was] much larger and encompassed a part of the central Podrinje below Srebrenica on both banks of the Drina’. Later on, the Osat on the right side of the Drina fell to the Despotate, and the one on the left side to the Kovacevics’ Land. Consequently, the Ottomans divided this area into two nahiyes, and thus the Osat on the right side of the Drina represented the Nahiye of Osat of the Qadi of Brvenik in the Sanjak of Smederevo, and the Osat on the left side of the Drina homonymus nahiye in the Kovacevics’ Land of the Qadi of Visegrad in the Bosnian Sanjak. Later on, the Qadi of Brvenik was included into the Sanjak of Zvornik, but its Nahiye Osat still remained a part of the Sanjak of Smederevo and was annexed to

90 A. Handzic, Tuzla, pp. 52-53.; Adem Handzic, Dva prva popisa Zvorničkog sandzaka, of 1519 and 1533, Sarajevo, ANUBiH-SANU, 1986 (A. Handzic, Dva prva popisa Zvornickog sandzaka).

91 Mustafa Imamovic, Historija drzave i prava, Magistrat, Sarajevo, 2003, pp. 121-122.92 A. Handzic, Tuzla, pp. 31-32.93 A. Handzic, Tuzla, p. 53.

30first Uzice and, and later on (before 1572) to the Qadi of Valjevo. Only certain villages in these nahiyes since very early on belonged to the Qadi of Srebrenica.94 As regards the Bosnian part of the once united Osat, we know that in 1528, ‘the Nahiye of Osat belonged to the Qadi of Srebrenica’. This means that this nahiye remained a part of the Bosnian Sanjak, and that in legal and administrative respect was excluded from the Visegrad and included into the Qadi of Srebrenica in the Sanjak of Zvornik. 95

Srebrenica – urban outlooks in the 16th century

The process of transformation of the mediaeval town with prominent Oriental influences can also be noticed to Srebrenica. The first step in the formation of the first core of the ‘new’ town usually consisted of choosing land in the territory of the old town or near surrounding which meets the conditions necessary for new construction. Those were, mainly, free agricultural lands which, most often, ‘variegated our mediaeval towns’, thus making them no different than ordinary villages. It is precisely here that a specific feature in the formation of the towns of Oriental type is manifested. They were formed by conscious actions of the high government officials, which are accompanied by pious endowments of the central authority officials, and even the sultan. Thus we can say that Srebrenica as early as the mid 15th century had ‘all the features of a typical Muslim town’. 96

During the Ottoman rule, the town continued its previously initiated economic development. The oldest preserved defter of the Qadi of Zvornik of 1519, gives rather basic information about Srebrenica and its nahiye. Srebrenica also had its own town of Srebrnik, where the Ottomans immediately placed their garrison and named it Srebrnica.97 This nahiye encompassed a small town, town area and the immediate surrounding of Srebrenica. Srebrenica is described as a silver mine, a town which has an organized fortress, a dizdar, a cehaja [administrator], a khatib and an imam.98 The Srebrenica mine was part of the imperial has. In the Srebrenica Nahiye, in 11 settlements (small town of Srebrenica, Sase, Gornji Suhoj, Srednji Suhoj, Ljubovic, Suha, Tosino, Milacevici, Bratovo, Gornje and Srednje Bijecevo, Dinovina and Gostilj, and two inhabited mezras: Donji Kozlin and Gornji Kozlin or Jakov) in 1533, there was a total of 576 taxpayer’s houses with 96 muccerets,99 among which 81 were Muslim houses with 32 muccerets

94 H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp. 135-136. Nahiye Osat of the Sanjak of Smederevo is mentioned for the first time in 1475 as one of the three nahiyes in the Qadi of Brvenik (Brvenik, Rujna and Osat), and Nahiye Osat in the Kovacevics Land in the Bosnian Sanjak is mentioned as early as 1469, then in 1485 and 1489. At the time, the square Petric on the Drina was located in this nahiye, but the old town of Durdevac is no longer mentioned. Bosnian Osat, in judicial and administrative respect, was first part of the Qadi of Pavle and Kovac, that is the Qadi of Visegrad (with the exception of few villages which were always part of the Qadi of Srebrenica).

95 H. Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, pp.135-136.96 N. Filipovic, op. cit., p.48.97 M. Dinic, Srebrnik kraj Srebrnice, pp. 185-186.98 A. Handzic, Dva prva popisa Zvornickog sandzaka, p. 24.99 As regards agricultural population, the accompanied member was called mujerred (Tur. mucerret –

alone, independent), and it usually referred to adult, able-bodied sons of the household. They were exempt of paying taxes (ispendza, resm-i cift) to the spahi. On the other hand, we also have the use of

31(16,2% Muslims).100 The town was mainly a mining center and everything else in it was subjugated to this primary role of Srebrenica as a silver mine. However, crafts and trade, were taken by the Muslims, of which it is explicitly said that their area of interest was not agriculture. Christian population was primarily involved in the sevice of the mine, an occasional town craft, furriery and butchery were also mentioned, and was partially involved in agriculture. Total population did not decline in regard to 1533 which is indicative of the fact that the operation of the mine depends on population.101

In a defter of 1533, it was recorded that Srebrenica had 36 Muslim houses, 178 Christian houses and 44 singles and 44 philurian houses. In the next 15 years the number of Muslim population of Srebrenica almost tripled. Namely, the comprehensive defter registry of 1548 holds a lot more information about Srebrenica and the villages of the nahiye. In the jamat concentrated around a Srebrenica mosque there were 106 Muslim households. Urban feature is further supplemented by the professions of these inhabitants. Thus, among them the following professions were mentioned: cap-makers /takveci/, button-makers, tailors, public bath workers, leather tanners, shoemakers, blacksmiths, saddlemakers, sabre-makers, butchers, scribes, safars. The mentioning of the safars indicates that the Muslim population services were engaged in the mine and other mine-related positions. Due to their professions, they were the privileged group in town. It is said that they were not farmers but rather, as were the Muslims in other towns, they were craftsmen, and for that reason they were exempt of paying the tax of dependence /resm-i cift/. They pay an offence and fine fee, mladarina [tax paid by the person whose daughter is getting married] and baduhava [tariffs] to imperial hases. These revenues were entered as items of trade tariff of Srebrenica. Those citizens that were engaged in the mine or mining business were exempt of paying the divan [state] taxes. Srebrenica speedily developed into a Muslim urban center, where, admittedly, Christian population was still dominant and had all the benefits of the Muslim population.102

Circumstances in Srebrenica after the period of over 50 years are described in a comprehensive defter registry of 1604. The Muslim group /cemaat/ in Srebrenica now had 182 households, as opposed to 106 households in 1548. They lived in the mahala where the mosque was. Among them, there was a significant number of scribes, and among craftsmen, there were saddle-makers, blacksmiths, shoemakers, leather tanners and tailors. The Christian group /cemaat/, the old raijje, had 103 households and a heritage. It was divided among seven mahalas, instead of former 21 mahalas, whose names are completely new, and were determined by the names of the persons who were the head of the mahalas. As regards the group of the old raijje, one notes that there was an increase in the new-comers, which, on the one hand, could indicate that the group of Christians sustained itself by the new-comers from the villages, and, on the other, that it declined due to the fact that part of the earlier community converted to Islam. Thus the total number of Christians accounted for 151 household and 2 heritages. Thereby, in

the term tâbi` (Ar. attendant), which stands for: an adult, able-bodied male member, single, attendant in the household. The term tâbi` was regularly used in the censuses of Vlachs’ households (stock-breeders), and it included sons, brothers, and other close relatives of the household. The taxes were paid only by the host. (A. Handzic, Dva prva popisa Zvornickog sandzaka, p. 23)

100 Adem Handzic, O sirenju islama u sjeveroistocnoj Bosni u XV i XVI vijeku, Studije o Bosni, Istanbul, 1994, p. 54.

101 N. Filipovic, op.cit., pp. 196-198.102 N. Filipovic, op. cit., pp. 196-197.

32the demographic sense as well, Srebrenica became a town with the Muslim majority, as was the case in the centuries to come. We learn from the defter of 1604, that there was a mosque of the Sultan Bayezid II, in the stronghold.

The registry mentioned above does not provide us with the number of population of Srebrenica, but rather provides data on the total revenue from Srebrenica, 47 732 akcas, with the exception of jizya [tax imposed on non-Muslims in Muslim states], which as a separate item was marked by 101 gold coins, which indicates that there were 101 Christian houses. Basic item of revenue from Srebrenica was the income from the production of silver. Tariff on charcoal, which was being prepared for the Srebrenica mine by the citizens of the respective nahiyes of Srebrenica, Subin and Kuslat was also recorded.103

Sources and references

1. Adem Handzic i dr., Najstariji katastarski popisi bosanskog, zvornickog i kliskog sandzaka, knjiga, I – V, Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1978;

2. Adem Handzic, O sirenju islama u sjeveroistocnoj Bosni u XV i XVI vijeku, u Studije o Bosni, Istanbul, 1994;

3. Adem Handzic, Dva prva popisa Zvorničkog sandzaka, iz 1519 i 1533. godine, Sarajevo, ANUBiH-SANU, 1986;

4. Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo,1975;5. Aleksandar Hoffer, Polozaj nekih mjesta u povelji kralja Sigismunda od god. 1426,

GZM, V, 1893.; 6. Aleksandar Solovjev, Odabrani spomenici srpskog prava (od XII do kraja XV veka),

Beograd, 1926;7. Aleksander Hoffer, Polozaj nekih mjesta u povelji kralja Sigismunda od god. 1426,

GZM, V, 1893;8. Arheoloski leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, tom 2, Sarajevo, 1988;9. Desanka Kovacevi – Kojic, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Veselin

Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1978;10. Desanka Kovacevic – Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, SANU,

Beograd, 2010;11. Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, O domacim trgovcima u srednjovjekovnoj Srebrenici,

Zbornik za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovine, SANU, Beograd, 1995.12. Duro Surmin, Hrvatski spomenici I, Zagreb, 1898;13. Edin Mutapic, Ban Kulin – povodom 820. godina Povelje, Ljudska prava, broj 1-4,

godina 9, Sarajevo, 2008;14. Ferdo Sisic, Letopis popa Dukljanina, SKA, Beograd – Zagreb, 1928;15. Franz Miklosich; Monumenta Serbica, Spectantia Historiam Serbiae Bosnae Ragusii;

Viennae, 1858;16. Glisa Elezovic, Turski izvori za istoriju Jugoslovena, Bratstvo, XXVI, Beograd, 1932;17. Grupa autora, Historija naroda Jugoslavije, knjiga I, Zagreb, 1953;18. Grupa autora, Povijest Svijeta – od pocetka do danas, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1977;19. Hazim Sabanovic, Bosanski pasaluk, Postanak i upravna pod jela, Djelo, Naucno

drustvo NR BiH, Odjeljenje istorisko-filoloskih nauka, knj. 14, Sarajevo, 1959;

103 N. Filipovic, op. cit, pp. 194-202.

3320. Jaroslav Sidak, Studije o „Crkvi bosanskoj“ i bogumilstvu, Zagreb, 1975;21. Jelena Mrgic, Severna Bosna u srednjem veku – zemlja – istorija – narod, doktorska

disertacija, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Filozofski Fakultet, Odeljenje za istoriju, Beograd, 2006.;

22. Jelena Mrgic, Donji Kraji – krajina srednjovekovne Bosne, Beograd, 2002;23. Jelena Mrgić, Zupe i naselja „zemlje“ Usore, JIC, no. 1-2, Beograd, 2000; 24. Jorjo Tadic, Pisma i uputstva dubrovacke republike, vol. I. (1359—1366), Beograd

1935, knjiga I;25. Josip Lucic, Spisi dubrovacke kancelarije, Knjiga II- IV, Zagreb, 1984 – 1993; 26. Jozsef Gelcich – Lajos Thalloczy, Diplomatarum relationae Reipublicae Ragusanae

cum regno Hungariae, Budapest, 1887;27. Konstantin Jirecek, Istorija Srba, knjiga I and II, translated by Jovan Radonic,

Beograd, 1952;28. Konstantin Jirecek, Trgovacki drumovi i rudnici Srbije i Bosne u srednjem vijeku,

prevod Dorde Pejanovic, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1951;29. Ludwig Von Thalloczy, Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im Mittelalter,

München und Leipzig 1914;30. Lj. Stojanovic, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, I/1, Beograd – Sremski Karlovci, 1929-

1934; 31. Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju izvora bosanske historije, K historiji despotske

porodice Brankovica, GZM, V, 1893. 32. Marko Vego, Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1957;33. Marko Vego, Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1982.;34. Mavro Orbin, Kraljevstvo Slovena, Beograd, 1968, pp. 148-150.;35. Mihajlo Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, knjiga I, SANU,

Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka, Beograd, 1955;36. Mihajlo J. Dinic, Iz dubrovackog arhiva, knjiga III, SANU, Beograd, 1967;37. Mihajlo J. Dinic, Srebrenik kraj Srebrenice, Srpska kraljevska akademija, Glas, CLXI,

Beograd, 1934;38. Milos Blagojevic, Bosansko zavrsje, Zbornik Filozofskog fakult. u Beogradu, XIV-1,

Beograd, 1979.39. Mladen Ancic, Putanja klatna, Ugarskohrvatsko kraljevstvo i Bosna u XIV stoljeću,

Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, Biblioteka, Djela - knjiga 9, Zadar – Mostar, 1997. ;

40. Musafa Imamovic, Historija drzave i prava, Magistrat, Sarajevo, 2003;41. Mustafa Imamovic, Historija Bosnjaka, BZK Preporod, Sarajevo, 1997.42. Nada Klaic, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, Eminex, Zagreb, 1994;43. Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje,

Tesanj, 2005;44. Neşrî, Tarihi, Kitâb-i Cihan – Nümâ, II. Cilt, translated by: Faik Reşit Unat iand

Mehmed A. Köymen, PhD, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi – Ankara, 1995;45. Pal Engel, Neki problemi bosansko-ugarskih odnosa, Zbornik odsjeka za povijesne

znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i drustvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Volumen 16, Zagreb 1998.;

46. Pavao Andelic, Ubikacija oblasti Trebotica i teritorijalno-politicka organizacija Bosanskog podrinja u srednjem vijeku, Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine, Arheologija, Nova serija XXX/XXXI (1975/76), Sarajevo, 1977;

47. Pavo Zivkovic, Usorska vlasteoska porodica Zlatonosovici i bosanski kraljevi (posljednja decenija XIV i prve tri decenije XV stoljeca), Historijski zbornik, godina XXXIX (1), 1986;

3448. Petar Skok, Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika, tom II Zagreb, 1972;49. Sima Cirkovic, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske drzave, Beograd, 1964; 50. Sefik Beslagic, Stecci – katalosko-topgrafski pregled, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1971;51. Sime Ljubic, Listine o odnosajih izmedu Juznoga Slavenstva i Mletacke Republike,

I-X, Zagreb, 1861 – 1891;52. Tade Smiciklas, Diplomaticki zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije,

Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, svezak I-XVIII, Zagreb, 1904 – 1990; 53. Tatomir Vukanovic (Vladimir Corovic), Srebrenica u srednjem veku, Glasnik drzavnog

muzeja u Sarajevu, Nova serija, Sarajevo, 1946;54. Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, tom IV, Beograd, 1971;55. Vladislav Skaric, Popis bosanskih spahija iz 1123 (1711) godine, GZM, II sveska za

historiju i etnografiju, XLII, Sarajevo, 1930;56. Vladislav Skaric, Stari turski rukopis o rudarskim poslovima i terminologiji, Spomenik

LXXIX, SKA, Sarajevo, 1935.

35

Appendices

Map no. 1. Territory mentioned in theTata Peace Agreement according to L. Thalloczya.104

104 Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju izvora bosanske historije, K historiji despotske porodice Branko-vica, GZM, V, 1893, (hereinafter: Lj. Thalloczy, Prilozi k objasnjenju – Brankovici) p. 189.

36

Map no. 2. Organization of Podrinje in the early Middle Ages according to P. Andelic.105

105 P. Andelic, Trebotic-Podrinje, p. 264.

37

Adib DOZIC, PhD

SREBRENICA TOWN MOSQUES

Summary

Mosques represent one of the most significant social, historical, cultural and civilizational features of the centuries-long history of the town of Srebrenica. In addition to mining and standing tombstomes, they are one of the longest-lived autochthonous identity traits of its cultural-historical heritage. This is further indicated by the fact that Srebrenica mosques as religious, cultural and educational entities, along with other Srebrenica social-historical and cultural-civilizational entities, continuously for more than five hundred years have been an integral part of the building of multilateral identity of the social-historical reality of Srebrenica, first of all, its multireligious, multiethnic and multicultural features. The first mosque in Srebrenica was the Tvrdavska [Stronghold] Mosque, built, if not in the period 1439-1444, when the Ottomans held Srebrenica under their control for the first time for five years in a row, then definitely in 1462, when the Ottomans finally conquered Srebrenica. The first town mosque was built during the rule of Bayezid II, in the period 1481-1512. If it had been built in the last year of his rule then that would make it half a millennium ‘old’.

Key words: Srebrenica town mosques, Srebrenica, Bosnian Podrinje, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Introduction

Numerous significant papers in scientific literature, first of all historical and archeological, have been written about Srebrenica, that is Domavia so far.106 However, despite the abundance of written papers, there is a scientific but also cultural need to write even more, first of all about the cultural-historical heritage of Srebrenica, at least for two reasons. First, in order to explain more precisely those scientific areas and topic that have not been completely researched, such as the genealogies107 of the Srebrenica 106 It would be worth-while to write a bibliography of past scientific papers on Srebrenica and its sur-

roundings.107 ‘GENEALOGY (grč. genos – generation, family + logos - speech), study of the origin, development

and branches of families and types of people, animals and plants. (M. Bosanac, O. Mandic, S. Pet-kovic, Rjecnik sociologije i socijalne psihologije, Informator, Zagreb, 1997, p. 191)

38families, complex processes inter-religious and interethnic relations, then the process of conversion to Islam and its symbiosis with the Bosnian style of life (architecture, language, customs and traditions et al.). The second reason, for a resumed, but also new research of cultural-historical heritage of Srebrenica, is to remove from all previous papers, where they can be found, ever-present stereotypes and prejudices, and not a small number of instances of twisting of the objective social and historical ‘image’ of Srebrenica. One of the weaknesses of the past historiography is, not only when it comes to Srebrenica but also the history of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state, that it was under the strong influence of the predominant ideologies. First and foremost, we are referring to national, hegemonic ideology from Bosnian neighborhood.108 Through insight into the Srebrenica mosques, we will bring up to date and objectify the scientific truth about Srebrenica. It is precisely though this paper that we want to point to the significance of Srebrenica mosques in regard to the overall social, historical, cultural, civilizational and educational features of Srebrenica. It is an indisputable fact that the basic characteristic of the social and historical features of Srebrenica lie in its multilateralism. In order to realize the Srebrenica multilateralism in its entirety, it is necessary to realize the role and significance as well as the duration time of each of its constituent subidentities. Srebrenica town mosques in the complex social and historical mosaic of Srebrenica represent one of the most important identity traits.

I. Multiethnic and multi-religious features of Srebrenica

Much as the entirety of social and historical processes and entities cannot be realized in the methodological-scientific terms without the understanding of the formation, development and significance of its subidentities, so it is also impossible to understand and realize, as well as scientifically explain the formation, development, significance and role of individual subidentities of a social phenomenon without the understanding of the entirety of that social phenomenon and the role that the entirety as a phenomenon sui generis had on the development of its subidentities. Srebrenica, and everything that we understand under this term in social and historical terms, as well as the entire Bosnian Podrinje,109 in its essence, represents, from the time it was

108 Historiography of Serbia and historiography of Croatia, as regards their interpretation of the devel-opment of ethnic identities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially Bosniaknism, give a completely wrong scientific elaboration. Branko Horvat is completely right when he says that ‘that historiography should not be taken too seriously’. Why? Because it, in Branko Horvat’s words: ‘is based less on scientific research, and more on patriotic ignorance and that such history both of Yugoslavia and the Balkans should be written all over again.’ These claims B. Horvat made based on his personal experi-ence and the experience of his children which is based on the studying of history in Croatia, that is Serbia. This is the experiences mentioned earlier: ‘I finished highschool in Croatia and my history teacher taught me that Bosnia is Croatian: there was some commotion, in the Middle Ages it was not clear who belonged where, but Bosnia is in principle Croatian! My children finished highschool in Belgrade, and their highschool teachers were Serbs and they taught them that Bosnia was Serbian.’ (B. Horvat, Nisu svi muslimani Bosnjaci niti su svi Bosnjaci Muslimani, u: Bosna i Bosnjastvo, Karan-tanija, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, 1990, p. 74.)

109 As regards Podrinje, it is necessary to differentiate between Bosnian and Serbian Podrinje, first of all

39first mentioned in written sources to this day, a multi-religious, multicultural and multiethnic substantiality. Before we point to the role and significance of the Srebrenica mosques in the development of Srebrenica multilateralism, it is important, for scientific-methodological reasons, to point out the key moments in the social and historical development of Srebrenica.

The area of Srebrenica,110 owing to its geopolitical location and natural resources, first of all noble metal ores, medicinal springs of Crni Guber, abundant expanses of forest, pastures, large number of the wildlife species and abundant rivers, was populated as far back as the Earlier Stone Age.111 One of the oldest settlements, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also in the Balkan Peninsula, is the town of Srebrenica. As a result of the social-historical development conditioned first and foremost by mining, Srebrenica is a centuries-old migration meeting-point. Indigenous population of Srebrenica came into contact and mixed with the immigrants, first of all people from Dubrovnik, the Saxons, Ottomans, Vlachs and others. Given the fact that the immigrants were by rule of different ethnic and religious affiliation, it inevitably, after the cultural and biological mixing, filled the area of Srebrenica with multiethnicity and multi-religiousness. It is an unquestionable historical truth that the earliest known inhabitants of Bosnia, and by that Bosnian Podrinje, were members of the local native Illyrian tribes,112 who in the beginning lived isolated from each other, and later on, with the increase of the social distribution of labor and overall quality of life, they started forming tribal alliances. 113

because of the difference in social and political conditions where they were developing both as ter-ritorial and political identities. Objective and serious researchers make a clear distinction between the two. Thus Mihajlo J. Dinic, researching the development of mining and the establishment of certain towns and strongholds says: ‘Zvornik as a stronghold, due to its strategic position, must have been established rather early, at the latest at the time when the border on the Drina between Serbia and Bos-nia was settled. (...) Zvornik represents the northernmost point of the Bosnian Podrinje (pointed out by A. D.) where a permanent colony of Dubrovnik could be found.’ Dinic also distinguishes ‘Bosnian central Podrinje’, as a part of the Bosnian Podrinje. Describing the mediaeval Bosnian noble families, Dinic says: ‘The Stanics were also one of the best known estate-owning families in the Bosnian cen-tral Podrinje.’ (pointed out by A. D). Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, Srpska akademija nauka, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga CCXL, Odelenje drustvenih nauka, Knjiga 14, Naucna knjiga, Beograd, 1955, pp. 36. and 43.)

110 Srebrenica is located in the southern-most part of the north-eastern Bosnia and together with the present-day municipality of Bratunac, which was established in 1957, completely fills the area of the Drina ‘elbow’. One of the oldest settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for a long period of time in the past, it was an economic, administrative and cultural center of the Bosnian Podrinje. It covers the area of 527 km2 and according to the 1991 census, it had a population of 36 666 inhabitants, settled in 81 settlement, arranged in 19 local communities. It had a following national structure: 27 527 or 75.2% Bosniaks, 8 315 or 22.7% Serbs, 779 or 2,1% of Croats, Yugoslavians and others. Density per km2 was 69.9 inhabitants. 5 740 inhabitants lived in the town of Srebrenica.

111 For further reading: Enver Imamovic, Porijeklo i pripadnost stanovnistva Bosne i Hercegovine, ART-7, Sarajevo, 1998.

112 For further reading: Enver Imamovic, Korijeni Bosne i Bosanstva, Medunarodni centar za mir, Sa-rajevo, 1995; Vjekoslav Klaic, Povijest Bosne, fototip izdanja iz 1882. godine, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990; Nada Klaic, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, EMINEX, Zagreb, 1994; Vladimir Corovic, Historija Bosne, reprint izdanje, Glas srpski, Banja Luka.

113 For further reading on the processes of ethnic development in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the neigh-boring states at the level of unification of tribal alliances into peoples in: Hakija Zoranic, O etnogenezi Bosnjana - Bosnjaka, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 2009.

40Due to the intensive exploitation of the silver ore in the area of the present-day

village of Sase, back in the Roman period, an urban settlement, with a square and a town hall,114 called Domavia, was established.115 Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the process of continuous settling of Srebrenica and the meeting of different religions, cultures and civilizations in the area of the present-day Srebrenica was not stopped. Having in mind ‘unity in diversity’ of the mediaeval ethnical structure of the population of Srebrenica, Tatomir Vukanovic points out that ‘according to the available historical data, the main population of Srebrenica were Bosnians, residents of Dubrovnik, the Saxons, and there were also some Serbians.’116 Some researchers are of the opinion that in religious terms all citizens of Srebrenica in the early 15th century were members of the Bosnian Church. In Ljetopis [the Annals] of Despot Stefan Lazarevic written by Constantine the Philosopher, it is said about the inhabitants of Srebrenica that they are ‘svi eresi bogumilske.’117 This ethnic ‘unity in diversity’ continued to the Ottoman period, which is unequivocally confirmed by the data recorded by a renown Ottoman travel writer Evliya Celebi. Passing through Srebrenica in the second half of the 17th century, Celebi writes: ‘Inhabitants are Bosniaks, and their raijje are Serbs and Bulgarians. However, all of them are friendly to foreigners.’118 Srebrenica was not an isolated case of social-historical multilateralism, on the contrary, due to its urban development it was a typical example of the entire Bosnian society in eastern Bosnia. About the origin and development of the multireligiousness and multiethnicity in eastern Bosnia, famous ethnologist J. Cvijic says: ‘This is a region of the Orthodox and the Muslims and the former are a majority. They mainly come from the sanjak Stari Vlah, and even more from the Montenegrin hills and the Montenegrin Herzegovina; they came down to this region down the Drina all the way to Glasnica on the Romanija. Unlike them the Muslims are mostly autochthons (indigenous inhabitants, o.p. A. D.) and they are a typical representation of picturesque Turkish-Eastern small towns of the entire region, especially Foca, Visegrad, Pljevlje.’119

That Srebrenica was a meeting point of different ethnic, religious and cultural identities, is also indicated by the fact that the Franciscans came to Srebrenica in 1292. By the decree of the Roman Catholic Church, for the purposes of spreading of Catholicism among the local population, the Franciscans built a monastery and St. Mary’s Church in Srebrenica. Both the church and the monastery in Srebrenica are mentioned in 1378 and 1514.120 There are several reasons why the Franciscans came to Srebrenica, but two are especially important. First, of course, is a huge economic, demographic and cultural significance of Srebrenica at the time, not only for the Bosnian Podrinje but also entire 114 V. Radimskay, Rimski grad Domavija u Gradini kod Srebrenice u Bosni i tamosnji iskopi, Glasnik

zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini, knjiga I, godina III, Sarajevo, 1891. 115 Present-day name of Srebrenica was derived from the silver mines and silver mints. For more exten-

sive reading, see: Marko Vego, Naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975; M. J. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u Srbiji i Bosni, I dio, SANU, 1955.

116 Tatomir Vukanovic, Srebrenica u srednjem veku, Glasnik drzavnog muzeja u Sarajevu, nova serija, sveska I, 1946, p. 63.

117 See: Vladimir Corovic, Historija Bosne, reprint izdanje, Glas srpski, Banja Luka, 1999, p. 182.118 Evliya Celebi, Putopis, Publishing, Sarajevo, 1996, p. 100.119 Jovan Cvijic, Balkansko poluostrvo i Jugoslovenske zemlje, knjiga I, Zagreb, 1922, p. 88.120 Dominicus Mandic, Acta francistana, tom I, Mostar, 1934, p. 10.

41Bosnia, as well as the neighboring states. The second important reason for the arrival of the Franciscans in Srebrenica is the fact that not far from the town of Srebrenica, in the settlement of Ljubskovo,121 there was the seat of dida, the religious head of the adherents of the Bosnian Church, authentic and autonomous spiritual and conceptual substantiality of the mediaeval Bosnia.122 Present among the population of Srebrenica, in addition to the Bosnian Church and the Catholic Church, was also the Orthodox Church. A more intensive influence of the Orthodox Church in Bosnia was spreading from Raska and Duklja only after the establishment of the Ottoman authority in Bosnia in 1463.123

When the Ottoman authorities came to Bosnia, they found a Bosnian society with developed multireligious structure, with precise differentiation of three religious beliefs, with three religious institutional organizations124: Adherents of the Bosnian Church, in folk tradition also known as ‘bogomils’125, adherents of Catholicism and the Catholic Church organization and adherents of the Orthodoxy institutionally organized in the Orthodox Church.126

After the establishment of the Ottoman rule in the area of the mediaeval Bosnian state there was no forced deportation of the native population or requisition of 121 Ljubskovo is located in ‘the District of Osat near Purtic, Krnic and Parabucje.” (For more extensive

reading, see: M. Vego, op. cit., and M. Dinic, Dubrovacka srednjovjekovna karavanska trgovina, JIC, Beograd, 1937.

122 ‘Some researchers believe that the adherents of the Bosnian Church were Orthodox. However, this belief is not quite accurate, because there is clear evidence that the official Orthodox Church con-demned it. (...) One Serbian inscription dating back from 1329 mentions ‘godless and foul babunis in Bosnia’.’ (V. Corovic, op.cit., p. 182)

123 Orthodoxy did not have any organization-wise influence, because Raska, from the 12th on, did not form a political community with Bosnia. In Raska itself, no sooner than the 13th century, St. Sava took over the entire organization of the church life, which could not encompass Bosnia as an alien political area.’ (V. Corovic, op. cit., p. 185)

124 ‘Before the arrival of the Turks there were adherents of three churches: Catholic,: Orthodox, and the Bosnian Church.’ (A. Handzic, op. cit., p. 81)

125 ‘In recent times, J. Sidak expressed his opinion claiming that the Bosnian Church did not have im-mediate connections with either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Catholics. It did not accept the primacy of the Pope, but it also did not become part of the Eastern Church. ‘It was a completely autonomous Christian Church, which attributed to itself the Apostol origin.’’ (V. Corovic, op. cit, p. 183)

126 It is important to point out that, as regards historical continuity of the Orthodoxy presence in Sre-brenica, in science there are rather opposing opinions, which indicates that there is a need for further research. Especially problematic and ill-founded claim as regards Srebrenica is that it is the seat of the Orthodox metropolis at the time when Srebrenica was ruled by Despot Stefan Lazarevic in the first half of the 15th century. Confusion arises due to impossibility to differentiate between and accept the existence of two Srebrenicas, ‘one in the Mine in Serbia, and the other in Bosnia.’ M. Dinic, A. Handzic and other authors believe that Despot Stefan Lazarevic had his castle (seat) in the mining (Serbian) Srebrenica, and not the Bosnian one. ‘By comparing the above data with the data from the Turkish defters about Srebrenica of 1533 and 1548, one should be suspicious of whether they really refer to the Bosnian Srebrenica or the Srebrenica in the Mine. Because if, in 1413, a stone Orthodox Church was constructed in Srebrenica, i.e. only two years before it fell under the despot’s rule, then the Turks should have found it there end record it. It is highly unlikely that in this transition period only the Orthodox church would disappear and the Catholic church would stay intact, which is much older and recorded in all Turkish registries of the 16th century, correctly noting its name: St. Mary’s Church.’ (A. Handzic, op. cit., pp. 101–102)

42their private estates. Numerous evidence support this claim. On this occasion we will mention the opinion of an important researcher into the Bosnian past, Ciro Truhelka. Truhelka says: ‘Turks, the conquerors of Bosnia, were not such barbarous destroyers, as the school history depicted them; in the conquered countries they did not destroy local institutions or prosecute individual estate-owning tribes, of course, we do not have any evidence that they, during their conquests, tried to force someone into converting to Islam.’127 What important happened in Bosnia after the establishment of the Ottoman rule instead of the authorities of the mediaeval Bosnian state? Surely, the most important social process was the process of the conversion to Islam.128 Essential characteristics of the conversion to Islam as a social-religious process were: graduality (it lasted for at least a century), non-violence,129 construction of Islamic religious buildings (mostly mosques), development of a social class of Islamic educated scholars who through their actions influenced the overall dynamics of the Bosnian society in the Ottoman period, and many others, human life-conditioned reasons.130 It is not a rare case in Bosnia and Herzegovina to find an entire family encompassing several generations whose members were Islamic educated notables.131

127 Ciro Truhelka, Historicka podloga agrarnog pitanja u Bosni, Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo, 1915, p. 15.

128 We point out – process of conversion to Islam, a not islamization, which was a dominant term in the scientific terminology so far. Why? We are doing this for the reason of pointing out that the conver-sion to Islam was voluntary and that the process was not carried out violently. The term islamization is reminiscent of the terms germanization, croatization, serbianization et al.., which truly were carried out violently.

129 ‘It seems that this frequent conversion to Islam was voluntary and not violent. A typical case of this occurred in 1565. In Husrev-bey’s Mahala, in the vicinity of the Orthodox neighborhood of Varos, a man and a woman, Vuksan and Marina, lived. They had two sons, Duko and Stojan, and two daugh-ters, Jovana and Ljiljana. After Vuksan died sons and daughters converted to Islam and took Muslim names: Mustafa (Duka) and Husein (Stojan), (Sidzil /protokol/ sarajevskog kadiluka od 973. (1565/6), Aisa (Jovana) and Fatima (Ljiljana). The mother stayed Christian. If the islamization had been carried out violently, surely the mother too would have had to convert to Islam. The same source contains other examples where e.g. one brother is Muslim and the others are Christians.’ (Vojislav Skaric, Srp-ski pravoslavni narod i crkva u Sarajevu u 17. i 18 . vijeku, in: V. Skaric, Izabrana djela, Knjiga II, V. Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1985, p. 8)

130 That even love between a man and a woman was, sometimes, the reason of conversion to Islam, is confirmed by an example from Srebrenica. ‘In 1611, a guardian of the Monastery of St. Mary in Sre-brenica, having fallen madly in love with a Turkish girl, converted to her religion, because there was no other way that he could make her his wife.’ (B. Benic, Ljetopis sutjeskog samostana, Syinopsis, Sarajevo, Zagreb, 2003, p. 45.)

131 One of those families was the Dozic family from Srebrenica. Uninterrupted imam tradition of the Dozics for over 300 years we will present in the descendants of the imam Muhamed Dozic, son of imam Husein. Muhamed’s lineage (line) from hafiz Salih to sheikh Sejid and his son Ibrahim is like this: imam Husein – imam Muhamed – imam Jusuf – imam hafiz Salih – imam hafiz Sejid – imam Teufik, Teufik’s brother Hamed is muezzin – imam hajji sheikh Sejid – madrasah student Ibrahim. Therefore, the facts show that Ibrahim, son of sheikh Sejid, is eight times removed (generation) unin-terrupted imam line of the family Dozic from Srebrenica.

43II. Srebrenica town Mosques – centuries-long identity feature of Srebrenica

Conversion to Islam in the area of Srebrenica, as was the case in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, did not represent only change in religious beliefs and religious rituals, but at the same time it also meant the overall change of the social-cultural life. The most important material change in Bosnian towns after the conversion to Islam is the construction of mosques. The mosque132 represents the center, not only of religious but also overall social life of a mahala and the town as local living spaces of Muslims. Next to the mosque, by rule, in the town center, there is a square, craft workshops, shops, public fountain and a bridge if the town (small town) is located on the river. In the written sources, two years are mentioned, 1352133 and 1376134, as the dates when Srebrenica is first mentioned in the written sources. We believe that the researchers who claim that 1352 is the year when Srebrenica was first mentioned, are right. First mentioning of Srebrenica in the written sources was in regard of gold, that is the name of the goldsmith, Dobro Bevenjutic. ‘Dobro Bevenjutic, we find in 1346 in Kuslat, at the confluence of the Jadar into Drinjaca. He was a goldsmith by profession and his area of operation for a long time was eastern Bosnia. Srebrenica is mentioned in regard to him: on 16 August 1352, two Ragusan mail carriers state that, at the request of Grub Mancetic, they had delivered a letter to Bevenjutic in Srebrenica – in Sebernica,- delivered on 2. August. Bevenjutic himself, a year before asked that Zive Prvoslavic, whom the mail-carriers found there on 3 August 1353, be summoned to court from Srebrenica.’135 The same applies to written sources as regards when Srebrenica first came into contact / encounter with the Islamic culture and civilization, which is extremely important for the observation of the construction of Islamic religious buildings. What we know, and what is important for our research, is that Srebrenica, first of all, owing to its natural resources and economic development, in the first half of the 15th century was the scene of conflict between the Bosnian and the neighboring states. ‘Starting from 1403, Srebrenica with its abundant mines was the apple of discord over which all the neighboring states were fighting. In the time period of 52 years Srebrenica changed at least thirteen rulers, until in the second half of the 15 century it finally became Turkish territory. It is completely understandable that all these changes

132 About the mosque as a term, its religious, social, cultural, educational and civilizational role see: Nerkez Smailagic, Leksikon islama, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, pp. 137–154; Muhamed Emin Dizdar, Dzamija kao prvo i najstarije uciliste, Glasnik, VIS u SFRJ, broj 5, godina XXXIX, pp. 491–495; A. es-Sarbasi, Uloga dzamije u sirenju islamskog obrazovanja i kulture, Takvim za 1985. godinu, pp. 73–84; Nijaz Sukric, Mesdzid i dzamija, Glasnik, VIS u SFRJ, broj 5, godina XXXIX, pp. 469–476.

133 Juraj Kujundzic, Srednjovjekovne crkve u Srebrenici, Dobri pastir, god. XVII–XVIII, Sarajevo, 1968, p. 81.

134 Tatomir Vukanovic, Srebrenica u srednjem veku, Glasnik Drzavnog muzeja u Sarajevu, nova serija, Drustvene nauke, sveska I, 1946, p. 41. In this paper Vukanovic quotes C. Jiricek, I. Delic and F. Miklosic and in the footnote explains: ‘In one charter in I. Delic, Monumenta Ragusina V, Zagrebiane, 1897, 377 it is mentioned that it was issued ‘sub castro Srebrenice’. In the Slovenian translation of the charter in question in F. Miklosic, Monumenta serbica, Viennae, 1858, 107, (...) that town is Srebrenik near Srebrenica.”

135 M. J. Dinic, op. cit., p. 48.

44of rulers were accompanied by demolition and destruction, and after destruction – new construction.’136 Facts outlined in the above quotation help us understand why the area of Srebrenica, aside from standing tombstones,137 has very little remains of the buildings and cemeteries dating back to the pre-Ottoman period.

The Ottomans138 finally took over Srebrenica in the first half of 1462.139 We learn this piece of information based on the sources about the Srebrenica Qadi140 which is mentioned in 1462. The same year the Ottomans appointed their mining representatives in Srebrenica. The Ottomans were Muslims and their state was founded on the principles of Islam, which is a reason enough that precisely 1462 can be taken as the year of the construction of the first mosque in Srebrenica. Therefore, the first mosque in the town of Srebrenica was the Tvrdavska Mosque and it was constructed in 1462.141 The first mosque in Srebrenica was not necessarily built of hard materials, because the first Muslims, back in Muhammed a.s.’s time, used other buildings as mosques / masjids, constructed of various available materials. In Srebrenica that material was most certainly wood. The only condition was that the area was clean.142 This first mosque in Srebrenica had to be constructed in the stronghold because the garrison was deployed there. Inexorable evidence on the existence of the Tvrdavska Mosque in Srebrenica are the first two registries of the Sanjak of Zvornik of 1519 and 1533. In the above registries it says: ‘The town of Srebrenica is a silver mine. Its stronghold is regulated;

136 D. Sergejevski, Ludmer, Srednjovjekovni nadgrobni spomenici Bosne i Hercegovine, Sveska IV, Zemaljski muzej u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1952, p. 74.

137 In the area of the municipality of Srebrenica “on 43 sites there are 815 standing tombstones (31 with decorations and 3 with inscriptions) near the hamlet of Grebena in the village of Urisici, there are 70. Near the village Suceska there are 52 standing tombstones.” (Blago na putevima Jugoslavije, BIGZ, Beograd, 1983, p. 322)

138 The Ottomans are very often, especially in the Serbian historiography, referred to as Turks. It is sci-entifically acceptable, not only in terms of terminology but also essence. Until 1923, there was an Ot-toman state (Osmanli devleti), and not Turkish state. This terminological inadequate confusion of the Ottomans with Turks gives a wrong image of history and has multiple negative consequences. This is an attempt to transfer current social-political reality into the past, not only on the political and ethnical level but also in all other segments of reality, which, in any case, is not true, and also scientifically incorrect.

139 “There is no doubt about it that Srebrenica is constantly mentioned as an area under Turkish rule in the Ragusan sources since 1 April 1462.” (A. Handzic, op. cit, p. 28)

140 In addition to Srebrenica, the Srebrenica Qadi encompassed the following nahiyes: Subin, Kuslat and Zvornik on the left, and Sokol, Radevina, Bohorina, Krupanj, Jadar and Pticar on the right bank of the Drina. (For more extensive reading see: Hazim Sabanovic, Bosanski Pasaluk, Sarajevo, 1959, pp. 168–169)

141 We decided to take 1462 as the year when the first Srebrenica mosque was constructed, because we believe it to be a more precise date than the, let’s say, 1439 or the 1444, when Srebrenica for five years in a row, from 1439 to 1444, was in the hands of the Ottoman authorities. It is almost certain that there was a mosque in the stronghold even then due to the presence of the military crew and the Islamic nature of the Ottoman state. It was most probably a prefabricated construction built of wood or, maybe, a larger tent. This issue, however, needs to be further examined.

142 “The faith revealed in the Qur’an, in principle, made the shrine redundant. Each place in its own and for itself was equal before God, and the ritually expressed humbleness before God could be performed anywhere; hence the Muhammad’s statement that he was given the entire earth as masjid.” (N. Smai-lagic, op.cit., p. 138)

45it has paid guards; it has a dizdar [commander], a cehaja [deputy], khatib and imam.’143 The following important historical source on the existence of the Tvrdavska Mosque in Srebrenica is also the existence of, among other waqfs in Srebrenica, the waqf of the Tvrdavska Mosque.144 This historical source reveals that the Tvrdavska Mosque in Srebrenica existed for a longer period of time and was built of hard material, on the contrary it would not have had its own waqf.

This claim is supported by the fact that the process of conversion to Islam in Srebrenica went rather slow.145 The reason for this, of course, was in the fact that in Srebrenica before the arrival of the Ottomans for more than 150 years there was a Franciscan Catholic Church, as well as the centuries-long presence of the Ragusans and the Saxons who were also Catholics. The first town mosque was probably built after the Tvrdavska Mosque and before Srebrenica gained the status of a town, because the existence of the town mosque was one of the conditions under which a settlement could gain the status of a town. About the time of the construction of the town mosque in Srebrenica very detailed information is presented by Adem Handzic based on the original Ottoman defters. ‘Srebrenica, some time before 1533, gained the status of town. In that year’s census it, it is treated as a town although it had a small jammat, only 36 taxpayer houses. It was more of a compact Christian town with 25 mahalas and the mentioned St. Mary’s Church. However, it met all the conditions to be called a kasaba. By that time the mosque was built and the square existed since very early on. This source says: in Nefs-i Srebrenica a market day is held, its stronghold is regulated, it is guarded by timarlija. Muslim population did not pay the so-called. resm-i cift, which also indicates that this place was proclaimed a kasaba [town]. That a mosque was built in Srebrenica prior to this year, it is indicated by the fact that mosque officials are mentioned among the Muslim population. And that this was not the Tvrdavska Mosque mentioned earlier but the new mosque in the town settlement, it is clear from the fact that we also have names of other religious officials mentioned. This year, timarlija is mentioned in the mosque: imam and khatib Mevlana Abdi, as well as Velija, the muezzin, while at the same time in the town settlement the following are mentioned: khatib Mevlana Semsudin and muezzin Ahmed.”146 From the above data we cannot learn what year exactly was the first town mosque was built in Srebrenica nor what site nor the founder. More precise time of the construction of the first town mosque in Srebrenica we find in the Putopis of Evliya Celebi. In 1600, Celebi says about the mosques in Srebrenica: ‘The main one is Bayezid Velija’s mosque. It is simply a place of worship built in the old style with one

143 See: Dva prva popisa zvornickog sandzaka iz 1519. i 1533. godine, Grada, knjiga XXVI, Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka, knjiga 22, Sarajevo, 1986, urednik Milorad Ekmecic.

144 For more extensive reading see: R. Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne Bosne, br. 3, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2012.

145 In the register of 1533, Srebrenica “had a small Muslim jamaat, 36 taxpayer houses total.” (A. Han-dzic, p. 149) “More than anything else it was a compact Christian town comprising 25 mahalas and the St. Mary’s Church.” (H. Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Islamska misao, broj 123, mart 1998, Sarajevo, p. 182). Well, in the period of 71 years that the Ottomans held Srebrenica, only 36 families converted to Islam. This is yet evidence that the Ottomans did not impose Islam by force.

146 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njezina okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, pp. 149–150.

46minaret, and roofed with keremid.”147 Therefore, the first town mosque in Srebrenica was the imperial mosque, built before 1512, because it was constructed when the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Bayezid II, Bayezid Velija (1481–1512), as Evliya Celebi called him. The first Srebrenica town mosque did not manage to ‘survive’ all the riots and war destruction of Srebrenica during the past centuries. Neither its location nor a photo of it was preserved, and it location where it was built is unknown. Adem Handzic assumes that the location of the first Srebrenica mosque was ‘probably (..) where the site of the present-day Carsijska Mosque is.’148 Based on all the so far known historical facts, but also knowledge of the development and organization of the Ottoman town settlements149 in Bosnia, it can be assumed that the first town mosque was built at the site of the present-day Dozics mosque in the Crvena Rijeka mahala. Several very important facts are indicative of this. The first fact that points to this conclusion is that the Carsijska Mosque in Srebrenica did not have minbars150 which is not the case with any other imperial mosque in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We know that the Carsijska Mosque was built, or reconstructed, by hajji Selman-aga Selmanagic in 1836. If he had reconstructed the imperial mosque, which had to have a minbar, he would have reconstructed it in its original form, and would not built it without a minbar, as he had done. Hajji Selman-aga Selmanagic’s or Carsijska Mosque, as it was usually referred to, was built in 1836, had a wooden minaret of moderate dimensions, as did other Srebrenica mosques. Due to its dilapidation, it was torn down in 1988 and at the same site a new mosque was built which in 1995 was torn down by the Army of the Republica Srpska. The mosque was rebuilt in a somewhat altered shape, with a tall minaret with three stories, and was officially opened on 16 July 2011. The second fact that points to the location of the first town mosque in Srebrenica is the site of the Dozics mosque in Crvena Rijeka, where the first Muslim mahala in Srebrenica was established. First Muslim mahalas, by rule, were formed below the strongholds and not far from them. At the site of the present-day Bijela mosque, which is also located below the stronghold and close to it, there was a Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church. Muslim mahala could not be developed around the church. Franciscan monastery and the second Franciscan church, St. Mary’s Church at the locality Klisa were near and below Srebrenica stronghold on its western side, so this was also the place the first Muslim mahala in Srebrenica could not be developed. The first Muslim mahala could not also be developed at the already existing town square, the site of which could only be somewhere away from the residential buildings, i.e. below the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church, and that is the area of the confluence of the Crvena and Bijela respective Rivers, the site of the Carsijska Mosque.

147 Evliya Celebi, Putopis, translation, introduction and comment: Hazim Sabanovic, Sarajevo, 1967, p. 99.148 A. Handzic, op.cit., pp. 150–151.149 Mosques were, by rule, located in the residential parts of the town, in mahalas and not squares. As we

already know, in Srebrenica there was, even before it was taken over by the Ottomans, a square, and it continued to exist. The square could only exist in the area where the present-day Carsijska Mosque is located and further down the river. By the expansion of the bazaar, and it could only expand along the river, the conditions for the construction of a new mosque were created, and it was built on the site of the present-day Carsijska Mosque.

150 ‘Carsijska Mosque is actually a masjid, without the minbar, where five daily prayers were performed, while jumma and eid prayers were performed in the Bijela Mosque. (H. Suljkic, op. cit., p. 187)

47The census of 1533 undoubtedly points to the fact that the Christian population

stayed in Srebrenica with their two churches151 and a monastery.152 Many controversies and inconsistencies can be found in the historical sources as regards the Orthodox church,153 that is the time of its construction. Typical example is the Orthodox Church in Sase.154

151 Those are: Franciscan Church of St. Mary’s with the monastery on the site of Klisa and the Ragusan Church of St. Nichola on the site of the present-day Bijela Mosque.

152 ‘Srebrenica monastery, during the 16th and 17th centuries, shared the fate with the town that was dying out. It was given the final blow by the Vienna War: the monastery was demolished and abandoned for good in 1686, after it had only, even before that, barely subsisted. (...) there is yet another instance that made this monastery important. During the conquest of Bosnia, Sultan Mehmed Fatih visited Sre-brenica monastery and on that occasion he presented it with a ‘silver elbow’, evidently a reliquary of the Dalmatian origin.’ (J. Kujundzic, op. cit., pp. 83–84) It is important to mention that the monastery and the Catholic churches in Srebrenica were not set on fire by the Ottoman soldiers or the local Mus-lim population but on the contrary, ‘in 1686 it burned down with the town itself, in a fire started by the imperial soldiers. The monastery of St. Mary’s in Srebrenica. The entire province, after it detached from Croatia, was named after this monastery, ‘Srebrena’. All the monks from this family, with the exception of their guardian, fled across the Sava. (B. Benić, Ljetopis sutjeskog samostana, Syinopsis, Sarajevo, Zagreb, 2003, p.110.)

153 In the earlier scientific research, there are various opinions on the Orthodox church in Srebrenica in the first half of the 15th century, e.g., J. Radonic in his paper Dubrovacka akta i povelje I, Beograd, 1934, pp. 83–84, mentions Bishop Bazilije (Io Basilio, per la Dio gracia vescovo Bassinense.). Jiricek refers to him as Bosnian Bishop Vasilije, adherent of the Eastern Church. M. Filipovic and some other authors take this piece of information as an evidence enough of the existence of the Orthodox Epis-copate in this part of Bosnia. Adem Handzic and many other authors believe that this is an unreliable piece of information compared to many other more explicit historical sources such as, e.g. Ottoman registry defters. A. Handzic, believes that ‘the population in this entire area was predominantly Catho-lic. This inference is also derived from the fact that in this area in the pre-Turkish period there were no churches other than Catholic recorded. (...) In Srebrenica and its immediate surrounding there were once three Catholic churches and those were: Srebrenica itself and Crnca (near present-day village of Mihaljevici) had one Franciscan monastery with churches dedicated to St. Mary each, and the Church of St. Nicholas in the village of Cagalj (near Srebrenica) which was constructed in the mid-15th cen-tury.’ (A. Handzic, op.cit., p. 87). Handzic goes on to claim, referring to the Ottoman registry defters, that the Ottomans in Srebrenica and its surroundings ‘in the earliest registries did not record any Orthodox cultural institutions, because the time period of the despot’s rule was relatively short.’ As regards the historical source on the Bosnian Bishop Bazilije (Basilio), A. Handzic, with good reason believes that ‘this very mentioning does not unfailingly reveal what tradition Bazilije belonged to (A. Handzic, op.cit., p. 95). Juraj Kujundzic also in his paper Srednjovjekovne crkve u Srebrenici does not mention the Orthodox church, but claims that ‘there were two churches preserved in the town: one almost in its entirety, present-day ‘Bijela Mosque’, while only the remains of the foundations can be seen of the other one. Those are the rubbles located in the place called Klisa’ (J. Kujundzic, op.cit, p. 82). Kujundzic specifies 1387 as the year when we were given ‘first news of the existence of the Fran-ciscan church in Srebrenica.’ Now, Franciscan churches and the monastery were demolished during the Vienna War, which means that they had existed for about three hundred years on end. Present-day Orthodox church in Srebrenica was built in 1903, and the Orthodox church in the town cemetery was built in 1971. There are no data in the scientific literature that in the past there were two Orthodox churches in those places.

154 Controverting the opinion of prota Milan Karanovic, Adem Handzic, undisputed scientific authority as regards the issue of the history of the north-eastern Bosnia in the 15th and 16th centuries, presents very interesting data on the Orthodox church in Sase, which indicates that it is necessary to re-ex-amine its history. Here is what A. Handzic says about the Orthodox church in Sase: ‘In Sase there is a mosque whose architectural design suggests that it existed for a long time, and the locals say that

48The first Muslim mahala comprising 36 houses as it was stated in the registry of 1533 was probably developed along the right bank of the Crvena River. Mahala Crvena Rijeka is one of the oldest mahalas (neighborhoods) in the town of Srebrenica. It was named after the little river near which it is located on its right bank. The color of the river appears red, and actually that is the color of the bed of the river (land and rocks) which is achieved by the oxidation of iron and arsen which the guber springs abound in.

None of the known historical sources mention the existence of Christian religious buildings at the site of the Crvena Rijeka. The Dozic’s Mosque or Crvena Rijeka Mosque, as it was lately often referred to, had a minbar and both jumma and eid prayers were performed there. One of the evidences that the location of the first mosque in Srebrenica was precisely in the Crvena Rijeka mahala is the fact that in the register of the waqfs in Srebrenica the Waqf of the mosque Crvena rijeka or Sarena Mosque is mentioned. Therefore, this mosque was especially decoratedwith colors, which is indicative of how special it was in comparison to other Srebrenica mosques. Since we have already learned from the historical sources that Srebrenica was, in its centuries-long history, often burned down and demolished, its mosques had the same fate. After the inscendiarism and demolition of the imperial Bayezid Velija Mosque, that is the first Srebrenica town mosque, on its site the members of its jamaat built a smaller new mosque. This happened after the Vienna War. It was then that on the rubbles of the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church a mosque was built. Consequently, two smaller mosques were built instead of the Carska Mosque, which was probably larger. The reasons were surely economic in nature, due to the impoverishment of the population but also the religious need of the jamaat members that each mahala has its own mosque. Mahala around the Bijela Mosque is also called Skender-mahala. It is quite possible that some Skender was a wakif during the construction of the mosque on the rubbles of the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church and the entire mahala was named after him. Since the Crvena Rijeka mahala is the oldest mahala in Srebrenica, with a long tradition of the name due to the prominence and uniqueness of color of the Crvena River, only its mosque was named after its wakifs. The last reconstruction of the mosque, to what it was like before the demolition in 1995, with a wooden minaret, and modest dimensions 6x8x5, was built by the Dozic family. It is perfectly logical that the mosque was reconstructed by the Dozic family because all of them, since the beginning of the Ottoman period to the end of the Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia and Herzegovina, had exclusively lived in the Crvena Rijeka Mahala.155 Reconstruction of the Dozic’s Mosque is underway, and

there is not, in the entire area around Srebrenice, an older mosque, nor a church, than the ones in Sase. As regards the church in Sase, Karanovic in the article in question claims that ‘the rubbles of the Sase church were bought off by the Orthodox Christians 70 ago who added church onto it.’ The sacristy, which the Orthodox churches do not have, indicates that the present-day church in Sase was constructed on the rubbles of the Catholic church. Besides, bishop father N. Ogramic-Olovcic, who was in Sase in 1673, found the rubbles of the church and ten Catholic houses.’ (A. Handzic, Porijeklo bosanskih Muslimana, Bosna, Sarajevo, p. 14)

155 The Dozic family from Srebrenica, from old times, come from the Crvena Rijeka mahala. Primary profession of their ancestors was the position of the imam, muderris, cadi, mualim, muezzin and other professions related to the religious and administrative positions. With the Austro-Hungarian occupa-tion of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the whole, the Dozics had a hard time adjusting to new conditions of life. This is best indicated by the fact that none of the Dozics, during the Austro-Hungarian rule in

49once again it is being reconstructed by the Dozic family. In addition to this fact, the mosque was named thus due to the fact that the service of the imam in this mosque was mostly performed by the imams from the Dozic family.156 Hivzija Suljkic, researching

Bosnia and Herzegovina, was a prominent merchant, private entrepreneur, nor a significant clerk in the Austro-Hungarian administration. Truth be told, even during the Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the first decades of its administration, two members of the Dozic family were performing the duty of the sharia judges. Hajji Mustafa ef. Dozic, son of Abdullatif, performed the duty of the sharia judge in Srebrenica in between 1883 and 1884. (See: Bosnjak za 1883. i 1884. ili Sematizam svijeh oblasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo.) After Mustafe, the sharia judge in Srebrenica in the period 1886-1887 was his brother sheikh hajji Husein. (See: Bosnjak, za 1886 i 1887. ili Sematizam svijeh oblasti u Bosni i Hercegovini. Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo.) The cadi hajji Husein was born in Srebrenici in between 1825 and 1830, and he passed away in 1901. The first member of the Dozic family who was buried in Gladno greblje (mezarje) in Zabojna. He was an extremely educated man, certainly one of the most educated men of his time in Bosnia. He finished Mektebi hukuk (Law School) in Istanbul. He spoke Turkish, Arabic, Persian, and he also spoke some German and French. He performed haj on two occassions and he was married twice. The Dozic fam-ily, to this day, including this day, remained faithful to the Islamic studies.

156 One of the primary professions of the family Dozic was the profession of imam. Best known Dozic imams were: Husein, the first known imam; Alija, son of Abdullatif; hafiz Salih, son of Jusuf; hajji Abid, son of hajji Mustafa; Abid efendi, son of Omer; Husein efendi, son of Omer; hafiz Abdulah, son of Alija; hafiz Mensur, son of hafiz Abdulah; hafiz Sejid, son of hafiz Salih and sheikh Sejid, son of Hamed. There are not many families in Bosnia and Herzegovina which had eight hafizs, (six from Srebrenica and two from Kladanj), as was the case with the Dozic family. The oldest known hafiz Dozic from Srebrenica was hafiz Salih, son of Jusuf. Hafiz Salih, son of Jusuf, was not registered in the book entitled Hafizi u Bosni i Hercegovini, and neither was hfz. Mustafa son of Omer. Hfz. Salih’s son Sejid was also hafiz. Hafiz Sejid ef. Dozic completed his hifz before muderis hajji hfz. Abdulah Dozic, son of muderis hajji Ali(ja) ef. Dozic. Both sons of hajji Ali(ja) efendi were also hafizs. Hajji hafiz Abdulah efendi, son of Alija, until the Second World War was working as a muderis in the madrasah in Srebrenica. We do not know before whom he completed his hifz. In some sources, but also in oral tradition he is often referred to only as hajji hafiz. The second son of hajji Alija, Salih, was also hafiz. Hafiz Salih, son of Alija, moved to Turkey and died there in the town of Bursa. Hajji hfz. Abdulah’s son Mensur was also hafiz. His hifz, hafiz Mensur, completed before his father. He passed away very young, not long after he got married, and shortly before the Second World War, well, before 1940. He did not have children. Hafiz Mustafa Dozic (1877–1901), son of Omer, completed his hifz as a student of Gazi Husrev-bey’s Madrasah in Sarajevo. In the book entitled Hafizi u Bosni i Her-cegovini, written by hafiz Fadil Fazlic, PhD the name of hfz. Mustafa Dozic was not mentioned, but this piece of information can be found in the book entitled 450 godina Gazi Husrev-begove medrese u Sarajevu, p. 80. and a book written by Hivzija Suljkic Islamska bastina u Bosni i Hercegovini i njenoj okolini - sabrani tekstovi, knjiga 2, BMG Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 290. Both hafizs Dozics from Kladanj had the first name Salih. The first was hafiz Salih, son of Omer, whose tomb can be found in the harem of the Kursumlija Mosque in Kladanj, and he died in 1873. The second hafiz Dozic from Kladanj is cadi Salih, son of the imam Muhamed, born in 1885. He completed his hifz in 1912 as the student of the Behram-bey’s Madrasah in Tuzla before the muderis hfz. Muhamed ef. Husic.It is hard to believe that beside these six hafizs from the Dozic family from Srebrenica and the two from Kladnja, there were no hafizs in the generations before them. Based on the entire family tradition, there probably were hafizs, but it was not recorded or preserved in the oral tradition. So far two of the Dozics have received the highest sufi titles (degrees), the title of the sheikh. Those were: hadjji Husein, son of Abdulatif, grandson of the imam Husein, who passed away in 1901. It is un-known what tariqa sheikh hadjji Husejn belonged to. Sheihk hajji Sejid son of Hamed, grandson of hafiz Sejid, great grandson of hafiz Salih, great great grandson of Jusuf, white bee of hajji Muhamed, born in 1964, is the sheikh of the Naqshbandi tariqa. Both sheikhs of the Dozics were of the spiritual orientation of Semsi ve ruhi.

50the monuments of the Islamic culture in Srebrenica, also shares the opinion of some people who ‘think that on the site of this mosque there used to be Sultan Bayezid’s Mosque, which burned down, and the jamaat members later on built this smaller one.157

Bijela Mosque in Srebrenica was built in the late 17th century on the rubbles of the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church.158 In his Putopis of 1660, Evliya Celebi writes that ‘ at the time Srebrenica was a developed town which had six mahalas with six mosques, a takiyah, three maktabs, one han [inn] and one public bath complex,159 as well as seventy craft shops.’160 Bijela Mosque was not included among these mosques. Franciscan churches and the monastery are mentioned in all Ottoman registries prior to the Vienna War (1683–1799). This means that the Ottomans did not turn churches into mosques at the beginning of their rule. So it is logical to wonder why this was done in the second half of the 17th century and what happened to Catholics in this town? In order to answer this question, it is important to point out some basic elements of social events in Srebrenica during the Vienna War. ‘In order to conquer Belgrade, the Austrian army for strategic reasons in 1686, pushed the Ottomans from the valley of the Upper Drina, even from Srebrenica itself. It was only in 1686, and only after hard and fierce attacks, that the army of Austria managed to conquer well-fortified Belgrade.’ In all directions where the Austrian army passed, everything was ‘in the sign of unseen slaughtering and pillaging of the town inhabitants.’ (Enciklopedija FNRJ, Zagreb, 454/D). Having in mind, probably , the war happenings mentioned above also in Srebrenica, J. Kujundzic, vaguely says: ‘Buildings and people were bolted down by the unfortunate events in 1686’ (Dobri pastir, p. 240). In this war whirlwind, we know for sure, all the mosques that Evliya Celebi mentioned were destroyed. When, after the mentioned bloody campaign, the Austrian army forces were retreating from Srebrenica, at that time scarce Catholics and even friars of the Franciscan order left this ancient town.161 These data unequivocally suggest that the Bijela mosque was built on the rubbles of the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church after 1686 and after the Franciscans had left Srebrenica with the Austrian army. There was no one left to reconstruct the church nor there was a need to do so, since there were no more Catholics left in Srebrenica, and the Muslim population grew due to the influx of refugees from the territory that the Austria had been taking over from the Ottomans. The Army and the Police of the Republica Srpska leveled the Bijela

157 H. Suljkic, op.cit., p. 188.158 ‘It is quite possible that the Ragusan Church of St. Nichola’s survived to this day in the walls of the

present-day Bijela Mosque in Serbrenica.’ (J. Kujundzic, op.cit., 86) This piece of information indi-cates that the Franciscan Church of St. Mary was located on the site of Klisa next to the monastery.

159 ‘On the top of the mahala, called Crvena Rijeka, there was a hamam (public bath, op. A. D.) and place that it was located is called Hamamluk. Its wall could be seen standing before the occupation (Austro-Hungarian, 1878, op. A. D.). During the construction of a building on this site, aqueducts and plates were found. The area of this land is up to 60 m2. The water for the hamam was taken from the brook of Goranovac.’ (Hamdija Kresevljakovic, Banje u Bosni i Hercegovini, u Izabrana djela, knjiga III, V. Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1991, p. 77)

160 E. Celebi, op. cit, p. 99.161 Hakija Dozic, (Ne)istine o srebrenickim dzamijama, Oslobodenje, Sarajevo, 9. XI 2002, Prilog: Po-

gledi, p. 7. The departure of the Catholic population along with their priests from Srebrenica in 1686 is not an isolated occurrence in Bosnia. The same happened after the invasion of Eugen of Savoy in Sarajevo in 1697 when almost the entire Sarajevo at that time was burned.

51Mosque in 1995. It was reconstructed by the donation of the Malaysian government and officially re-opened on 28 September 2002.

The Mosque in Petrici,162 (that is Petric-mahala, as the local community was called at the time of its establishment163) Neither the exact date of the construction nor the name of the wakif of the mosque are known. ‘The base of the mosque is a rectangle with sides measuring 10x7,5 m (on the outside). It was built of chopped stone all the way to the roof construction, six meters high and 98 cm thick, covered by a hipped roof construction, now covered by tiles.’164 The last reconstruction of this mosque before it was demolished in 1995, was done in 1983. The reconstruction of this mosque has not started yet.

Musala,165 existed in Srebrenici until 1953. Accoring to recounts, prayers were performed there until 1935. The musalla in Srebrenica measures 20x15 meters; it had a mihrab in the wall and the minbar made lumber, which was quite rare when it comes to musallas. The musalla was covered and enclosed by boards. It was located at the site of the present-day kindergarten. The last imam of the Musala was hajji Abid ef. Dozic, son of cadi hajji Mustafa.

In Srebrenica there was a Medresa [madrasah] which operated. From ‘Bosna’166 we learn that in 1866 in Srebrenica a madrasah was built at the site of the old and dilapidated maktab. The madrasah stopped operating in 1930. We learn this from the Report on the work of the Ulema-medzlis in Sarajevo of 1932. This building of the madrasah in Srebrenica was located on the left side of the entrance of the Carsijska Mosque. This is the location of the present-day building of the Islamic Center. The last muderris167 of the Srebrenica madrasah was Haki(ja) ef. Dozic. In addition to Haki-efendi, other muderrises in the Srebrenica madrasah include: hajji Ali(ja) ef. Dozic and hajji hafiz Abdulah ef. Dozic.

Begica Mosque in the settlement of Vidikovac was built in 1989, and its wakif was Azem Begic, a native of the village of Luka. The mosque was demolished in 1995. Its reconstruction is underway, and it is being reconstructed by the sons of Azem Begic.

It is important to point out that before the war against the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state (1992–1995) in the area of the municipality of Srebrenica there were 22 mosques (of these 5 in the town of Srebrenica), three masjids, one Islamic Center and one maktab. All these buildings of Islamic spirituality and culture were leveled during the last war. Unfortunately, to the last deliberately, and not as a result of the war

162 Hivzija Sulkic refers to this mosque as Petrica Mosque after the Petrica mahala, although among the Muslim public of Srebrencia it is very rarely referred to by this name. The name of this mosque that is predominant is Mosque in Petrica, and not Petrica Mosque.

163 There are no reliable data that this mahala, at the time it was founded, had its present-day name. There is some circumstantial evidence that it could have been called Misirlije or, maybe Zlativode.

164 H. Suljkic, op.cit., p. 44.165 This is actually an open air mosque. Common prayers such as jumma and eid prayers were performed

on the musalla. A mihrab for the imam and a minbar for the hutba were very rarely built on the mus-alla.

166 The official papers of the Bosnian Vilayet with a parallel bilingual text in the Ottoman and the Bos-nian language. The papers had been published for thirteen years on end. The first issue of ‘Bosne’ was published on 16. (28.) May 1866.

167 Muderis is a teaching position in the rank of highschool.

52operations.168 To this day eight mosques were reconstructed 169 and the Islamic Center, four mosques are being reconstructed 170, while all others are waiting to be reconstructed.

Conclusion

Among numerous sub-identity features of Srebrenica, taken as social-historical substantiality, the town mosques are most definitely one of the most important. This is indicated by many historical sources. The oldest mosque in Srebrenica constructed in 1462 is the Tvrdavska Mosque, built in the Srebrenica fortress above the town. This is indicated by the existence of the waqf of the Tvrdavska Mosque, but also the names of the imam and khatib, Mevlan Abdija, and muezzin, Velija. The first town mosque was constructed in the period 1481-1512. The location of the first town mosque was not most accurately determined, but based on the available data, it could have been either on the site of the present-day Dozic’s Mosque in Crvena Rijeka or the site of the present-day Carsijska Mosque. Bijela Mosque was constructed on the rubbles of the Ragusan St. Nichola’s Church, after it was demolished in 1686, that is during the Vienna War and the departure of the Franciscans and the Catholic population from Srebrenica. It is unknown when the mosque in Petrica was constructed or who its wakif was. As all other Srebrenica mosques, it was demolished in 1995 and to this day its reconstruction was not begun. The town mosques of Srebrenica as religious, cultural and educational facilities, along with other Srebrenica social-historical and cultural-civilizational facilities, for 550 years have continuously taken part and are taking part in the building of multilateral identity of the social-historical reality of the town of Srebrenica and its surroundings.

168 The phenomenon of the deliberate destruction of the Islamic religious buildings: mosques, masjids, takiyahs, turbets, cemeteries and others, has not been scientifically researched enough. This phenom-enon of collective social destruction is in need of a special and scientifically relevant study. This time, in addition to hegemonic ideologies and programs as one of the reasons for the destruction of Islamic religious and cultural buildings, we want to point yet another possible reason, and it can be found in the stereotypical national-literary works such as, e.g., Gorski vijenac. Some of the verses in Gorski vijenac unambiguously call for the destruction of Islamic religious buildings. Here are the verses: ‘But break the minaret and the mosque, and Serbian yule-logs load’ (p. 62), ‘Hit the devil, do not even leave its trace, hit the turned Turks, do not even leave their offsprings’ (p. 162). (P. P. Njegos, Gorski vijenac, Nolit, Beograd, 1974)

169 Reconstructed mosques: Bijela Mosque in Srebrenica, Carsijska Mosque in Srebrenica, the mosque in Osat, the mosque in Gornji Potocari, the mosque in Dobrak, were reconstructed by the prominent business man from Srebrenica Enver Malagic, mosque in Osmace, mosque in Slapovici, waqf of Se-lim Alemi from the village of Kutuzer, mosque in Luka, mosque in Suceska.

170 The Dozic’s Mosque in Crvena Rijeka mahala in Srebrenica, mosque in Tokoljaci, mosque in Ra-dovcici, the Begic’s Mosque in Vidikovac.

53 References

1. Benic Bono, Ljetopis sutjeskog samostana, Syinopsis, Sarajevo, Zagreb, 2003. p.110. Bosnjak za 1883 i 1884. ili Sematizam svijeh oblasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo.

2. Bosnjak za 1883 i 1884. ili Sematizam svijeh oblasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo.

3. Bosnjak za 1886. i 1887, 1888. i 1889 ili Sematizam svijeh oblasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo.

4. Cvijic Jovan, Balkansko poluostrvo i Jugoslovenske zemlje, knjiga I, Zagreb, 1922.5. Corović Vladimir, Historija Bosne, reprint izdanje, Glas srpski, Banja Luka, 1999.6. Dinic J. M., Za istoriju rudarstva u Srbiji i Bosni, I dio, SANU, 1935.7. Dinic J. M., Dubrovacka srednjovjekovna karavanska trgovina, JIC, Beograd, 1937.8. Dizdar Emin Muhamed, Dzamija kao prvo i najstarije uciliste, Glasnik, VIS u SFRJ,

broj 5, godina XXXIX.9. Djedovic Rusmir, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne

Bosne, br. 3, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2012.

10. Celebi Evlija, Putopis - prijevod, uvod i komentar: Hazim Sabanovic, Sarajevo, 1967.11. Dozic Adib, Bosnjacka nacija, BKC, Sarajevo, 2003.12. Dozic Adib, Drustveno-historijska situiranost Bosnjaka u Srebrenici, Pogledi, BZK,

Tuzla, br. 8, juli 2001.13. Dozic Hakija, Muderiz Haki(ja)-ef. Dozic, (manuskript), vlastito izdanje, Sarajevo, 2001.14. Fazlic Fadil, Hafizi u Bosni i Hercegovini u posljednjih 150 godina, El-Kalem, Sarajevo,

2006.15. Grupa autora, 450 godina gazi Husrev-begove medrese u Sarajevu, Gazi Husrev-begova

madresa, Sarajevo, 1988.16. Hadzibegovic Hamid, Opsada Niksica 1877. g. prema izvjestaju Niksickog naiba,

Istorijski zapisi IV, 1–3, 1949.17. Handzic Adem, Tuzla i njezina okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975.18. Hasandedic Hivzija, Muslimanska bastina u Istocnoj Hercegovini, El-Kalem, Sarajevo,

1990.19. Imamovic Enver, Porijeklo i pripadnost stanovnistva Bosne i Hercegovine, ART–7,

Sarajevo, 1998.20. Imamovic Enver, Korijeni Bosne i Bosanstva, Medunarodni centar za mir, Sarajevo,

1995.21. Klaic Vjekoslav, Povijest Bosne, fototip izdanja iz 1882. godine, Svjetlost, Sarajevo,

1990.22. Klaic Nada, Srednjovjekovna Bosna, EMINEX, Zagreb, 1994.23. Kovacević Desanka, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Naucno drustvo NR Bosne i

Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 1961.24. Kujundzic Juraj, Srednjovjekovne crkve u Srebrenici, Dobri pastir, god. XVII–XVIII,

Sarajevo, 1968. 25. Mandic Dominicus, Acta francistana, tom I, Mostar, 1934. 26. Njegos P. P., Gorski vijenac, Nolit, Beograd, 1974. 27. Skaric Vladislav, Izabrana djela, knjiga I i II, V. Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1985.28. Smailagic Nerkez, Leksikon islama, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990.

5429. Suljkic Hivzija, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Islamska misao, br. 123, mart

1989.30. Spomenica Serijatsko sudacke skole u Sarajevu (1887-1937), Islamska dionicarska

stamparija, Sarajevo, 1937. 31. Sabanovic Hazim, Bosanski Pasaluk, Sarajevo, 1959. 32. Sukric Nijaz, Mesdzid i dzamija, Glasnik, VIS u SFRJ, broj 5, godina XXXIX.33. Tridesetogodisnji Izvjestaj serijatske sudacke skole u Sarajevu od osnutka do kraja

skolske 1916./1917., Zemaljska stamparija, Sarajevo, 1917. 34. Truhelka Ciro, Historicka podloga agrarnog pitanja u Bosni, Zemaljska stamparija,

Sarajevo, 1915.35. Vasic Milan, Etnicke promjene u Bosanskoj krajini u XVI vijeku, GDI Bosne i

Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 1962.36. Vego Marko, Naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975.37. Vukanovic Tatomir, Srebrenica u srednjem veku, Glasnik Drzavnog muzeja u Sarajevu,

nova serija, 1946.38. Zoranic Hakija, O etnogenezi Bosnjana – Bosnjaka, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 2009.

55

The Appearance of the Srebrenica Town Mosques Before the War

Bijela mosque

56

Carsijska mosque

Crvena Rijeka (Dozica) mosque

57

Rusmir DJEDOVIC, M.Sc.Institute for the Protection and Use of Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of Tuzla Canton, Tuzla

URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF SREBRENICA FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE EARLY

TWENTIETH CENTURY

Summary

This paper deals with the urban development of the town of Srebrenica, as an important strategic, political and economic, as well as the urban center of the Middle Drina Valley Region, across three historical periods: the Middle Ages, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian. Basic characteristics and elements of the urban structure of the town from each of the afore-mentioned periods were outlined. Special attention was given to the role of the institution of waqf in the urban development of Srebrenica with a special reference to well-known waqfs and wakifs of this town. Key words: Srebrenica, urban development, Middle Ages, Ottoman period, Austro-Hungarian period, mahala, bazaar, waqf.

Introduction

The settlement of Srebrenica was an important strategic, political and economic (mining, crafts and trading) center of the Middle Drina Valley Region from the Middle Ages to the present day. Due to, Srebrenica became an important urban center of the Middle Drina Valley Region during this period of time. Urban development of Srebrenica, in the Middle Ages, Ottoman period and Austro-Hungarian period, was not researched in detail to date. The institution of waqf, whose role in the urban development of Ottoman as well as Bosnian-Herzegovinian towns is already well known in scientific research, is especially important for the urban development of Srebrenica. The aim of this paper is to research and outline the basic characteristics and elements of the urban structure of the town in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and emphasize the importance and role of waqf in the urban development of the town of Srebrenica in the last 500 years.

58 Classical Tradition

The area of the town of Srebrenica was, first of all owing to abundant natural resources, populated from very early on. In the ancient period there were very important urban agglomerations in the surrounding of Srebrenica (ancient towns in Skelani and Sase). In the area of the present day town of Srebrenica there was a settlement as early as the ancient period. Various archaeological findings (water pipes, coins, jewelry…), medicinal properties of Crni Guber [Black Guber] and the vicinity of Roman mining pits, as well as the ruins of a large Roman building in Petric Mahala indicate that an ancient settlement existed there.171

Middle Ages

Mediaeval settlement of Srebrenica, which was located below the mediaeval citadel of Srebrenik, was not researched in detail from the urban development and ur-ban structure points of view to this day. Scientists have already pointed out that such research, when it comes to Srebrenica, is extremely scarce although it was a developed urban center.172

It is a well-known fact that the layout of a town represents one of the most im-portant aspects in the studies of mediaeval European towns.173

In the historical documents the settlement of Srebrenica is called a civitas (town) and its inhabitants ‘civis Srebernize’.174

During the Middle Ages in the area of the present day town of Srebrenica an important urban agglomeration with a complex regional and urban structure was devel-oped. Based on the current knowledge, the settlement included the following regional and urban facilities:

- Mediaeval fortress of Srebrnik (Upper and, maybe Lower Town); - Podgrade (present-day Grad Mahala); - Trgoviste [Market Place] – square (mercatum, forum, later on, the site of the ba-

zaar). There were also trade actions (botegas, stacunas), workshops and other commercial and public buildings;

- Mine with mine shafts (pits), as well as mine-related industrial facilities: smelt-ers, mills... It is a well-known fact that in the 15th century Srebrenica was the

171 Enver Imamovic, Srebrenica i okolica u rimsko doba, Clanci i grada za kulturnu istoriju istocne Bosne, 17, Muzej istocne Bosne, Tuzla, 2002, pp. 32-33.

172 Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, SANU, Posebna izdanja, knji-ga DCLXVIII, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka, knjiga 19, Beograd, 2010, p. 111.

173 Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Izgled Srebrenice u dubrovackim izvorima (1352-1460), Spomenica Mi-lana Vasica, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Republike Srpske, Spomenica 11, Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka 14, Banja Luka, 2005, p. 81.

174 Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, SANU, Posebna izdanja, knjiga DCLXVIII, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka volume 19, Beograd, 2010, p. 112.

59second largest mine in the Balkan peninsula,175 after Novo Brdo;

- Mostly residential parts of the settlement, such as: Crvena Rijeka [the Red Riv-er], Petric, Varos...;

- Panaduriste, part of the settlement where panadurs [trade fairs] were held in Srebrenica;

- The colony of the Republic of Ragusa, that is, a strong Ragusan settlement;- Trgovacka ulica [Trading Street] (via de merchado), which led to the square.

It mostly consisted of houses belonging to Ragusan citizens. This is the only street in our mediaeval towns whose name is mentioned in the documents;

- Franciscan monastery with St. Mary’s Church; St. Nicholas’ Church; The old-est Catholic church in Srebrenica is mentioned in 1378 in Bartol Pizanski’s list. After 1453 it was built in brick and in 1504, it was also enlarged;

- A part of the settlement called Vila Baratovo. In the district of Srebrenica ‘villa Boratoue’ is mentioned as early as 1440.176

- Shelter for lepers, a slaughterhouse, the customs, a mint, inns, hostelries...;In the mediaeval settlement of Srebrenica, houses were mostly made of wood

and quite often those were two storey houses. The settlement also had a sewage system. Inside the settlement there were farmlands as well as vineyards.

During the Middle Ages, Srebrenica, like all other European towns at the time, had its own town council and town law. In terms of the most important urban, economic, administrative and cultural characteristics, mediaeval Srebrenica was a typical mediaeval European town in many respects.

Ottoman period

The Ottomans conquered the area of Srebrenica after 1459 and before April 1, 1462, when Srebrenica, in the Ragusan documents, is mentioned as a territory under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

During more than four centuries of Ottoman rule, the town of Srebrenica went through several stages of overall development, including urban development. These stages are determined by general historical circumstances and they consist of the respec-tive periods of devastation, recovery and full development. In the course of this research we abstracted the following stages of the urban development of the town of Srebrenica.

Devastation (from the middle to the late 15th century) Not long after 1459, Srebrenica became a part of the vast Ottoman Empire. The

mediaeval town of Srebrenik, located on a hill above Srebrenica, became an Ottoman military stronghold with the oldest mosque.

175 Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Izgled Srebrenice u dubrovackim izvorima (1352-1460), Spomenica Mi-lana Vasica, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Republike Srpske, Spomenica 11, Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka 14, Banja Luka, 2005, p. 83.

176 Mihajlo J. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovjekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, SAN, Posebna izdanja, knjiga CCXL, Odeljenje drustvenih nauka volume 14, Naucna knjiga, Beograd, 1955, p. 34.

60Hungarian troops led by Emeric Zapolya invaded Srebrenica in 1464 and pil-

laged it.177

That Srebrenica was already an important settlement when the Ottomans seized it is best seen in the fact that during the famous Hungarian invasion (in 1476) the town had some 700 houses (with a population of 3.500 inhabitants). On this occasion many citizens of Srebrenica were killed, 500 citizens were captured, significant amount of money, silver, silk and other goods was seized. The town was pillaged and then burned down.178

During the second half of the 15th century Srebrenica was devastated on more than one occasion due to wars between the Ottoman Empire and Hungary.

Towards the late 15th and early 16th centuries the circumstances in Srebrenica finally became favourable and Srebrenica slowly started recovering.

Recovery (from the late 15th to the late 16th centuries)As early as the beginning of the 16th century, the settlement in Srebrenica started

receiving urban, economic and cultural features of a town and earlier than 1533 it was officially proclaimed a town. At the site of the former Trgoviste (square), a bazaar, as an Ottoman and Oriental equivalent of an old business center of a settlement, started form-ing. In the center of the bazaar, the second mosqe bearing the name of Sultan Bayezid II was built in between 1481 and 1512. At that time Srebrenica had revenues in the amount of 47.732 akces (small sil-ver coins), and the main entry were revenues from the production of silver.179

At the beginning of the 16th century Srebrenica encompassed two mezras (larger estates), Donji i Gornji Kozlin (Jakov), with a total of 5 non-Muslim houses and rev-enues of 1.600 akces. Later on we have a mentioning of two more mezras and they were all used as farmlands by the citizens of the town.180

In the middle of the 16th century there was also a mint. In 1533 the town of Srebrenica had some 230 taxpayers’ houses (36 Muslim, 178 early raijje-Catholic and 43 immigrant Vlach-stockbreeder) and a population of about 1500 inhabitants. In this register it is said about Srebrenica that: a market day is held, the stronghold has regulations and is protected by timarlija [warrior nobility].181

By early 16th century Srebrenica had: a military fortress with a crew; bazaar with shops, workshops and other public and commercial buildings; a mine; panadur with a traditional fair; several residential mahalas. At that time it also had two mosques, a monastery with a church, a hammam [public bath]…

177 Mihajlo J. Dinic Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovjekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, SAN, Posebna izdanja knjiga CCXL, Odeljenje drustvenih nauka volume 14, Naucna knjiga, Beograd, 1955, p. 88.

178 Mihajlo J. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovjekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, SAN, Posebna izdanja knjiga CCXL, Odeljenje drustvenih nauka volume 14, Naucna knjiga, Beograd, 1955, p. 88.

179 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005, p. 196.

180 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005, pp. 196-197.

181 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, p. 149.

61By the end of the first half of the 16th century (in 1548) the town of Srebrenica

had some 600 taxpayers’ houses (106 Muslim, 143 early raijje-Catholic and 43 Vlach -stockbreeder) and a population of some 2.000 inhabitants.

A group of 143 households (cemaat), with 10 single men and one single inheri-tance was distributed among 21 mahala, among which Pavka Mesara Mahala, where there were 16 households, was the largest, and the smallest Pisni Voda Mahala, maybe near Srebrenica where the present-day Guber is located – had only one household. Mar-ko Tomas Mahala is also mentioned.182

The same year the following craftsmen were registered in town: cap-makers (takyeci), button-makers, tailors, public bath worker (workers in the bath - hammam), leather tanners, shoemakers, blacksmiths, saddlers, sabremakers, butchers, clerks, sa-fars (mine-business workers).183

It is possible that there were also other urban facilities in Srebrenica during the 16th century, such as masjids and possibly a takiyah.184

The Golden Age (late 16th – late 17th centuries)Data on revenues from mining and ore processing indicate that Srebrenica was

an important economic center from the middle of the 16th and the early 17th centuries (according to the registers dating back from 1548 and 1604 respectively). Total revenue of the emperial hases (estates) in Srebrenica at that time was in between 508.829 and 513.658 akces. Revenue from the mint and coin minting was 400.000, from one tenth of silver production in between 60.000 and 63.459 (in the amount of 20.000 dirhams of pure silver) and from silver kalhana (smeltery) 3.500 akces. Total revenue from mining and mint, at that time, was a large amount of 463.500 akces. Wax chandlery (semhane) in the Sanjak of Zvornik brought Srebrenica revenue in the amount of up to 12.000-13.000 akces. Revenue from bazaar tax (bac-i ba-zar), buthcher’s shops, mills and pan-adurs was 18.666 to 19.291 akces. Then, there was revenue from market inspectorate, court fee and the monopoly in the amount of 8.700 up to 9.700 akces. As it can be seen from the analysis of revenues from Srebrenica, there was an important mine, whose town center, the Muslim area, had all features of a goods-and-financial center with fairly prosperous market relations.185

Favorable and stable economic circumstances in the middle of the 16th century resulted in continuous overall, as well as urban, development of the town. Due to, in the late 16th and throughout the 17th centuries, the town of Srebrenica reached its ‘Golden Age of overall, as well as urban, development’.

In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the town of Srebrenica had in between 330 and 340 taxpayers’ houses (182 Muslim, 103 early raijje-Catholic and 48 Vlach-stockbreeder) with a population of about 2.500 inhabitants.

182 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005, p. 197.

183 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005, p. 197.

184 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, p. 150.185 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj,

2005, pp. 198-202.

62Jamat of the early raijje was distributed among seven mahalas. The largest ma-

hala had 68 households and one heritage, and at least three smallest mahalas had three respective households. At the head of one mahala was Pava the blacksmith. In four mez-ras belonging to the town of Srebrenica in 1604 there were twenty-eight Muslim and two non-Muslim houses and their revenue was 2.389 akces. Then there was a Pribicevac mezra with a cifluk (estate) of Ibrahim, son of Hajdar. A part of the Donja Kozlin mezra was held by a commander (dizdar) of Srebrenica. 186

By the end of the 16th century in Srebrenica there were some 400 Catholics (ac-cording to father Franjo Visocanin). In the early 17th century in Srebrenica there were 379 Catholics.

Continuous growth of the town of Srebrenica from the late 15th century, cul-minated in the second half of the 17th century. At that time (in 1660) Evliya Celebi in Srebrenica found: a developed bazaar with 70 shops and craft workshops; six Muslim mahalas; six mosques; a takiyah; three maktabs; a hammam; a han (an inn). 187 Of course at that time there was also a military stronghold, a settlement with non-Muslim inhabit-ants, panaduriste [trade fair place] and a monastery with a church. Up to this point the researchers did not find out where all the six mahalas along with six mosques were located in Srebrenica at that time.

They are probably present day mahalas: Carsija, Crvena Rijeka and Petric along with their respective mosques. The location of the remaining three mahalas and mosques is completely unknown. At the time there were up to 800 houses in Srebrenica, which were built of solid materials and high. The town of Srebrenica in the second half of the 17th century had a population of about four to five thousand of inhabitants.

A Catholic church of the Franciscan monastery in Srebrenica was mentioned throughout the 17th century e.g. in 1640, 1675 or 1679. In 1679 it is described as a magnificent church with a rather simple monastery (according to father Franjo from Varadin).

According to most researchers this church was located on the site called Klisa in Petric (deriving from Latin and Greek term ecclesia / ekklissi, that is, Ottoman term for church kilisi). In between 1672 and 1675 in Srebrenica there were about 150 Catholics (ac-cording to bishop Ogramic).

Devastation (late 17th/18th centuries)The result of heavy wars waged in the late 17th and throughout the 18th centuries,

as well as the disease epidemics, unyielding years and famine, was the stagnation of the urban development of the town of Srebrenica. In the fall of 1688 Austrian army led by general Bodensky, invaded from the north through the Drina Valley, occupied Zvornik and continued their operations further

186 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005, pp. 201-202.

187 Evlija Celebi, Putopis, Sarajevo-Publishing, Sarajevo, 1996, pp. 99-100.

63south and it even seemed that they were going to reach the gates of Sarajevo. In January 1689 they were also attacking the fortress in Srebrenica but to no avail.188

Catholic population was nearly extinct and at the site of the Catholic church (which was torn down around 1690) a mosque was built. In 1720 there were only twenty or so Catholic houses. Muslim population also suffered losses.

It was the time when plagues, draughts and famine were raging throughout the entire Bosnia, neighbouring areas, as well as Srebrenica. In Srebrenica there is a cem-etery popularly called ‘Gladno’ (Famished). Great plagues took place e.g. in 1689-1691 and 1732. In the chronicles dating back from this period it is said that there was no town, settlement or village in Bosnia where plague had not struck.

The settlements were also attacked and burned down by Montenegrian brig-ands. During this period they burned down townships (towns) of Knezina (which, at the time, had four mosques) and Kladanj, and they even reached Nova Kasaba.189

Urban, economic, cultural and religious facilities in Srebrenica were severely damaged. Out of former six mosques three completely disappeared from the stage of history. Three of them were rebuilt later on and they exist to this day. All three have a wooden minaret, exterior porch and front medium-deep mahfil. They were built of stone and they were of similar design.190

Recovery (18th and 19th centuries)Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries there ensued a long period of recovery in

every respect: economic, demographic, cultural, religious and urban. Towards the end of the Ottoman period the town of Srebrenica had some 260

houses with a population of over 1.200 inhabitants. We learn this from the first Austro-Hungarian census in Bosnia and Herzegovina which was conducted in 1879. According to this census, the town of Srebrenica had 264 houses and a population of 1.219 inhab-itants and it had a status of a marktgemeinde, that is, commercial municipality. There were some 825 Mohammedans and 394 citizens of Oriental origin. 191 When interpret-ing this population data one also has to take into consideration the fact that a significant number of Bosniacs – Muslims fled the Austro-Hungarian takeover.

Urban structure of the town of Srebrenica towards the end of the Ottoman period

Immediately after the Ottomans conquered the mediaeval settlement of Sre-brenica, in the mid 15th century, this settlement started and continued developing under the influence of the Islamic and Oriental urbanization until the late 19th century. Busi-ness center of the town – bazaar and residential parts - mahalas were formed.

188 Alija Bejtic, Knezina i knezinska nahija u historiji i likovnom stvaralastvu, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju, XXVI/1976, Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1978, p. 56.

189 Alija Bejtic, Knezina i knezinska nahija u historiji i likovnom stvaralastvu, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju, XXVI/1976., Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1978, pp. 54-59.

190 Madzida Becirbegovic, Dzamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sara-jevo, 1990, pp. 112-113.

191 Statistika miesta i pucanstva Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 1880, p. 95.

64Various documents mention different parts of the urban structure of the town.

For example, in 1870 Dervis, son of Ibrahim from (I) Skender Mahala in Srebrenica sold his estate; in 1887, a widow named Salkuna from Kiptijan Mahala got married; in 1887, Pasa, the daughter of Mehmed, from Petric Mahala married Suljo, the son of Omer, from the same mahala. 192

The analysis of the urban structure of the town of Srebrenica towards the end of Ottoman rule can be conducted on the basis of several detailed sources. These sources, first and foremost, are detailed information which can be found in Austro-Hungarian cadastral plans dating back from the period 1883-1885, Austro-Hungarian terriers dat-ing back from 1894 and the last Ottoman land registers.

There are also several general lists of mahalas in Srebrenica dating back from the late 19th century. Mayor of Srebrenica, Yusufbey Efendic (?), on May 17, 1883, sub-mitted a list of ‘names of the existant mahalas in town: Skender-Mahala, Petric-Mahala, Grad-Mahala, Crvena Rieka, Varos-Mahala, Panadzuricka’. 193

In the Austro-Hungarian cadastral plan of the town center of Srebrenica on the 1:3.125 scale cadastral sheet, dating back from the period 1883-1885, there is also a fol-lowing list of mahalas: I Ciganska Mahala, II Srpska Mahala, III Skender Mahala, IV Crvena Rieka Mahala, V Petric Mahala. 194

From the 1895 Austro-Hungarian census in Bosnia and Herzegovina we can see the following list of mahalas in the town of Srebrenica: Crvena Rijeka, Grad, Kaptijan Ciganski, Petric, Skender, Varos. 195

Through a detailed research of the urban look of the town of Srebrenica towards the end of the Ottoman period we can single out following elements:

Strongholds Towards the end of the the Ottoman period in the town of Srebrenica there were two strongholds, as urban and architectural ensambles. High on the hill on the south-eastern side of the town at about 560 meters above sea level, there are ruins of the old mediaeval citadel of Srebrenik. Below this town, on the plateau that descends towards the center of Srebrenica, at about 460 meters above sea level, there is a stronghold, which, according to some, was built by the Ottomans during the 18th century. Inside the stronghold there were sev-eral buildings that were used at the time.

Carsija [Bazaar] During Ottoman rule, Carsija in Srebrenica was located downstream of the com-position of the respective Rivers Crvena and Bijela, where they become the Krizevica River. Carsija was located on the right, slightly slanted part of the Krizevica valley.

192 Tufan Gunduz, Tuzlanski, Bijeljinski i Srebrenicki sidzil (1641-1883), Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla, 2008, pp. 19-27.

193 This report was submitted to Mehmed-bey Kapetanovic Ljubusak, who, 130 years ago, was collect-ing various materials throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Dragomir Vujicic, Onomasticka grada Mehmed-bega Kapetanovica Ljubusaka, Bosanskohercegovacki dijalektoloski zbornik knjiga III, Institut za jezik i knjizevnost u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1982) On this occasion the mayor of Srebrenica, Yusuf-bey, also listed the ‘names of well-known wells: Adrovac, Luka, Guber Mali, Guber Veliki’.

194 Katastarski plan iz 1883.-1885. godine, za KO Srebrenicu, razmjera 1:3.125. Katastar Srebrenica.195 Hauptresultate der volkszahlung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22. april 1895, Landesregier-

ung fur Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Sarajevo, 1896, p 354.

65 In the Middle Ages there was also Trgoviste with a square which was, through commercial and public offices, replaced by an Ottoman bazaar. Towards the end of the Ottoman period, Carsija in Srebrenica encompassed several streets that all met below the Carsija Mosque and thus made a unique town cen-ter. At the time there were many shops, craft workshops and other commercial facilities (store rooms, greengroceries…) in Carsija. Even the most important public buildings such as inns, the central mosque, madrasah (secondary school) and maktab (primary school), were located in Carsija. This was also the place where all the most important administrative offices of the Srebrenica Qadi were located. In addition to over hundred business facilities, ten or so public and administra-tive ones, at the time there were also twenty or so residential buildings in Carsija.

Skender Mahala Skender Mahala or Hajji Skender, is located in the south-eastern part of the ba-zaar. It was developed on the site of the the residential area of the mediaeval Srebrenica, mediaeval Trgovacka Ulica and the famous Ragusan colony. From the early years of the Ottoman rule until the late 17th century and the great devastation of Srebrenica, there was an old mediaeval Franciscan monastery and a Catholic church in this street.

Towards the end of the Ottoman rule, this mahala was the largest mahala in the town of Srebrenica and it had some 65 houses and several other buildings. There was also a mosque (Hajji Skender or Bijela [White] Mosque) with an adjoining cemetery.

Crvena Rijeka Mahala Crvena Rijeka Mahala (sometimes also called Guber) is one of the oldest parts of Srebrenica. Next to it there are old mines. Some believe that in addition to a public bath dating back from the 16th century, there was also the oldest mosque in Srebrenica (dating back from early 15th and late 16th centuries). Towards the end of Ottoman rule this mahala had some 25 residential houses, a mosque and a maktab.

Petric Mahala This mahala is located upstream the Bijela [White] River and was separated from Skender Mahala by a narrow strip of free space. The name of the Petric Mahala (can also be found under the name Petric), indicates that it dates back from the mediae-val period. Towards the end of the Ottoman period this mahala had some 40 houses, a mosque, several Muslim cemeteries (especially large waqf complex of Ucina Basca). On the Bijela there was also a watermill.

Grad Mahala This smaller mahala was located on the plateau (about 460 meters above sea level) on the south-eastern side of the Ottoman fortress of Srebrenik. It was probably developed on the site of the suburbs of the mediaeval fortress. In the late 19th century it had 6 to 7 houses and a cemetery located above it.

66Musala [Musallah]

It is located downstream from the bazaar, on the left flattened bank of the Krizevica River. Musala, a large piece of open land in town (intended for mass public and religious gatherings), as well as the bazaar in Srebrenica, started developing in the early years of the Ottoman rule. Over time remote parts were turned into a cemetery and in some parts residential, public and other buildings were erected. Towards the end of the Ottoman period, there were about ten or so houses and a decorated musallah (as an architectural unit intended for praying) in Musala. This area became extremely interesting for the construction (of roads, public buildings) after the arrival of the Austro-Hungarian rulers.

Varos Even further downstream than Musala, on the right, rather steep, bank the Krizevica valley, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Varos Mahala started developing. It was populated by immigrants of Serbian and Orthodox origin from the southern moun-tainous regions, and thus it was also called Srpska Varos. Towards the end of the Ottoman rule Varos had some 55 houses and an old Or-thodox church. Former site of this church is called crkviste [church land]. The Church is registered in the Austo-Hungarian cadastral plan dating back from the period 1883-1885, and it disappeared after 1903, when a new Orthodox church was built just above the bazaar.

Kiptijan Further than Musala and Varos and close to the Krizevica during the Ottoman rule Kiptijan Mahala was developed. This is a common Ottoman name for the the part of town inhabited by gipsies, that is, Romani population. Having in mind their way of life and their traditional crafts, there is nothing odd about the location of this mahala.

Towards the end of the Ottoman period Kiptijan Mahala (in some sources Kip-tijan Ciganski) had some 25 houses, mostly smaller ones.

Panaduriste Further downstream there was a large complex of public land that was, in the old times in Srebrenica, used for open air trade. Those were the famous panadurs, fairs et al. For this reason the area is called Panaduriste. On some maps it is not shown as a part of the town of Srebrenica, but over time it became a part of it. Towards the end of the Ottoman rule a smaller Panduriste Mahala started devel-oping and it had 7 or 8 houses and several other objects. Later on, the main road from Srebrenica passed through this area.

Han Baratovo At the northern exit of the town of Srebrenica, where a road to Zabojna branch-es off the road to Potocari and Bratunac, there was an inn, which, in the plans dating back from the late 19th century, is called Han Baratovo.

67 Zabojna This is a part of Srebrenica located on the far west of the territory of this settle-

ment, which towards the end of the Ottoman rule had only one house and a watermill (belonging to the Dozic family), and later on it was populated and adjoined to the settle-ment of Bajramovici.196

Waqfs in the town of Srebrenica from the 15th to the 20th centuries

It is a well-known fact that the institution of waqf and their various features have an important role, and sometimes even crucial one, in the overall, as well as urban development of our towns during the Ottoman rule. Waqfs are for the most part intended for the development and operation of Muslim religious and educational institutions, but they also include numerous other urban, public and economic facilities.

The town of Srebrenica, from the Middle Ages to the present-day, represents an important strategic, political and economic (mining, handicraft and trading) center of the Middle Drina Valley region. As expected, waqs left a visible mark in the develop-ment of the town since the establishment of the Ottoman rule, from the mid 15th to the 20th centuries. In towns located in the north-eastern region of Bosnia and Herzegovina there were many rich waqfs throughout the entire period of the Ottoman rule. These waqfs existed and continue to exist to this day. These waqfs left a visble mark in the develop-ment and appearance of all towns. Following towns had an especially large number of wealthy waqfs: Donja Tuzla (Tuzla) and Gracanica (over forty), then: Zvornik, Brcko, Gornja Tuzla, Bijeljina, Gradacac, Kladanj, Srebrenica...

The waqfs of some of the towns in the north-eastern Bosnia have already been discussed.197 In the town of Srebrenica waqfs were set up and waqf facilities exist since the establishment of the Ottoman rule. Hereafter in the paper we are going to outline ba-sic information on waqfs in the town of Srebrenica before the Austro-Hungarian period. Through the resources and efforts of wakifs (benefactors) in Srebrenica, as well as elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire, numerous religious, public and commercial facili-ties were erected.198 The first two mosques in Srebrenica were built and funded by the state.196 Rusmir Djedovic, Urbani razvoj grada Srebrenice u osmanskom periodu sa posebnim osvrtom na

ulogu vakufa, Proceedings of the conference „Naucni aspekti kulturno historijskog naslijeda Sre-brenice“, held on October 26, 2011 in Srebrenica, JU Arheoloski muzej „Rimski Municipijum“, Skel-ani – Srebrenica, 2012 (in preparation).

197 Halima Korkut, O vakufima u sjeveroistocnoj Bosni, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga V-VI, Sarajevo, 1978; Rusmir Djedovic, Uloga i znacaj Turalibegovog vakufa u urbanom razvoju grada Tuzle, Stav – casopis za drustvena pitanja, kukturu i umjetnost, br. 2, februar 2003, Narodna i univerzitetska biblioteka Dervis Susic, Monos, Tuzla; Edin Sakovic, Znacaj vakufa u razvoju gra-canicke carsije, Gracanicki glasnik 17, maj 2004, Monos, Gracanica, pp. 69-81; Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u Tuzli od XVI do XX stoljeca, Zbornik radova Veliki vakifi Bosne, BZK Preporod, Tuzla, 2006, pp. 71-76.

198 Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne Bosne – casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 3/2010, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla.

68Mosque in the fortress of Srebrenik The oldest mosque in the settlement was located in the mediaeval town and later

on an Ottoman stronghold in Srebrenik, on the hill above the center of the settlement. Decoration and erection of the oldest mosques in or near conquered citadels, was a stan-dard procedure of the Ottoman authorities. The examples of these are found in: Zvornik, Kuslat, Teocak, Srebrnik (on the Majevica)... This was also the case with this citadel, which was, immediately after the conquest, reorganized and started operating as such. In the early 16th century, as the mosque clerics the following are mentioned: Mevlana Abdi, a khatib and imam, and Velija, a muezzin. In the mid 16th century, the following are mentioned: Mevlana Hajrudin, as imam and khatib of this mosque in the stronghold and Hamza, son of Mehmed, as muezzin (the first one had a timar [salary] of 1.700, and the later 700 akces).199

Sultan Bayezid II’s Mosque (Casna [Honorable] Mosque)It was built before 1533, that is during the rule of Sultan Bayezid II (1481-

1512), known as Velija (holy). It is for this reason that Evliya Celebi, passing through Srebrenicu in 1660, referred to it as Bayezid Velija’s mosque and described it as a sim-ple place of worship built in the old style with one minaret and covered by keremid.200

This mosque, in the registers dating back from the 16th century, is referred to only as Casna (Honorable) Mosque. In 1533, Mevlana Semsudin, khatib, and Ahmed, muezzin, are mentioned as mosque clerics. In the mid 16th century, the position of the imam was still held by the same man, while the position of the muezzin was filled by Ibrahim.

The fact that, in 1533, an amount of 360 akces per year for the expenses of light-ing and carpets in the mosque in the stronghold of Srebrenica was allocated from state revenue (taxes) of the village of Drazevine in Subin Nahiye indicates that these two oldest mosques in Srebrenica, dating back from the second half of the 15th and the early 16th centuries, were built and funded by the state.201

Waqf of the Carsija Mosque This is one of the oldest waqfs in Srebrenica, probably related to Sultan

Bayezid’s Mosque, which dates back from the late 15th and early 16th centuries. It was probably devastated during the wars in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and was reconstructed later on. It is a known fact that the mosque was also reconstructed by hajji Selman-aga in 1836.

In 1890, this waqf, registered as musakafat, had revenue from rental fee in the amount of 35 florins, and, registered as mustagelat, revenue from waqf’s land in the amount of 50 florins, that is, a total of 85 florins. Revenues of the Waqf of the Carsija Mosque in Srebrenica, in 1890, were spent on the respective salaries of the imam and muezzin of the mosque in the amount of 16 and 50 florins. The expenses for lighting and carpeting were 15 florins. According to the waqf’s budget, the waqf’s expenditures in

199 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, p. 150.200 Evlija Celebi, Putopis, Sarajevo Publishing, 1996, p. 99.201 Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, p. 150.

69the amount of 81 florins were met with a surplus of 4 florins for that year.202

Waqf of the Carsija Mosque in Srebrenica, according to first land and property registers in 1894, owned the following real property: a mosque building with a building site and a yard, c. p. no. 1/451, with an area of 140 m². 203

Waqf of the Carsija Mosque, according to the budget in 1913, had revenues, from the mill and land property, in the amount of 190 krones. The expenditures for the respective salaries of the imam and muezzin of the mosque were 30 and 160 krones. That year, the mutawalli of the waqf was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.204

Over time, the waqf of the Carsija Mosque became larger due to new real prop-erty which was added to it. In 1936 and 1938 respectively a Bojna land was purchased (c. p. nos. 519 and 516) from Alija Selmanagic.205 In 1936, the Kovacevic family en-dowed land on c. p. no. 156 to this waqf.206

The building of the Carsija Mosque, which was torn down in July, 1988 due to the construction of a new building, was of modest dimensions, 6 x 8,5 m, and a wooden minaret. Up to that point, the mosque, or to be more precise the masjid, did not have a mimbar. Five daily prayers were perfomed in this mosque, while the respective Jumuah and Eid prayers were performed in the nearby Bijela Mosque.207

Waqf of the Carsijska Cesma [Bazaar Fountain]This waqf dates back to the same period as the above-mentioned one.According to the waqf’s budget in 1890, Waqf of the Carsijska Cesma had rev-

enues in the amount of 40 florins, registered as musakafat, from bakery rental fee. These revenues were spent on fountain maintenance.208

Hammam [Public Bath]Srebrenica had a hammam since the early 16th century (or to be more exact

1533). At that time it was refered to as Emperial Hammam and had annual revenues in the amount of 333 akces.209 It was also mentioned by Celebi in the 17th century. By tradition, this hammam was located in the Crvena Rijeka Mahala. Hammam was located at the top of the mahala called Crvena Rijeka. This is the present-day Hamamluk. Its walls still stood and could be seen prior to the occupation in 1878. Channels and plates of the hammam were found on this site.210

202 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890., Sastavljeni po zemaljskom vakufskom povjerenstvu u Sarajevu, Drugi svezak, p. 75.

203 Gruntovne knjige iz 1894. godine za KO Srebrenicu. Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 458. Grun-tovnica opstinskog suda u Srebrenici. All the numbers of the cadastral parcels (c. p.) today are called the old survey, unlike the numbers c. p. of the new survey which were introduced several decades ago.

204 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 287.205 Gruntovna knjiga XI, ulosci broj 516 i 519.206 Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 494.207 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 286. About this mosque, see: Madzida Becirbegovic, Džamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1990, pp. 113 and 164-165.

208 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 75.209 Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj,

2005, p. 199.210 Hamdija Kresevljakovic, Hamami u Bosni i Hercegovini, 1462-1916, Beograd, 1937, p. 73.

70Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Cesmas (wells) [Red River Fountains] It is mentioned in 1890, and is probably related to the above-mentioned, or the

use of the medicinal properties of the Guber wells.The same year musakafat of this waqf had revenues from the shop rental fee in

the amount of 25 florins. Actual expenditures of the Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Cesmas in Srebrenica in 1890 were 20 florins and they were spent on fountain maintenance. The waqf had a surplus of 5 florins.211

Takiyah In Srebrenica, as well as other towns during the 17th century, there was a taki-yah. It was mentioned by Celebi, and it had to have its waqf for funding, and it disap-peared a long time ago.

Waqf of the three maktabs dating back from the late 16th and early 17th centuries

In the mid 17th century in the town of Srebrenica there is a reference to three maktabs.212 Each of these had to have its own waqf. These waqfs were founded and the maktabs were built during the 16th or the first half of the 17th centuries. By the mid 19th century in Srebrenica there was a building of an old maktab, which, over time, became completely dilapidated. The waqf that was funding it, as it seems, had long been lost, and there were neither waqf funds for its maintenance nor for the salaries of the mullahs who were teaching the children.213 On the site of this maktab a madrasah was built in 1866.

On the site of one of these maktabs dating back from this period, late 19th cen-tury, there was probably a maktab for girls. This can be seen from a reference made to a special waqf under the name Vakuf mejtefa za žensku djecu (Waqf of the Religious School for Girls) in 1894.214 This waqf had a house with a yard enclosure on the c. p. no. 362/3, with an area of 70 m2 (apparently in Crvena Rijeka Mahala) and a shop with a building site in Carsija on the c. p. no. 1/62 with an area of 30 m2.215

Revenues of the waqf of the Religious School for Girls in 1912 were 160 kro-nes.216

According to the budget in 1913, Waqf of the Girls’ Maktab in Srebrenica had total annual revenue in the amount of 207 krones. They came from the waqf bakery and waqf land property in the amount of 187 and 20 krones respectively. The expenditures

211 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 75.212 Evlija Celebi, Putopis, Sarajevo Publishing, 1996, p. 99.213 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 288.214 Knjiga abecedni popis vlasnika nekretnina za K.O. Srebrenicu. Gruntovnica opstinskog suda u Sre-

brenici.215 Gruntovna knjiga VIII, ulozak broj 375.216 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 289. This author, a very good connoisseur of the Islamic heritage in north-eastern Bosnia, by referencing the source, also mentions revenues from other waqfs in Sre-brenica in this year: Bijela Mosque 250, Carsijska Mosque 140, Crvena Rijeka Mosque 150, Petrica Mosque 50, musallah 50, maktabs-ibtidaia 2240, girls’ maktab 160 and madrasah 1050 krones.

71were: mualim’s salary in the amount of 40, rent for the maktab building in the amount of 120 and a lump sum in the amount of 40 krones. That year the waqf had a surplus of 7 krones. Mutawalli of the waqf was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.217

The building of the Girls’ Maktab was located in Skender Mahala. The maktab had one floor and below it there was a shop. Maktab was in operation until 1941, and after the World War II it was torn down due to dilapidation. Maktab’s mualims were the imams of the Carsijska Mosque.218

A different Waqf of the Religious Shool in Srebrenica, in 1894 owned follow-ing real property. The maktab building, which was registered as a house with a yard enclosure, was located on the c. p. no. 1/449 with an area of 160 m². Then, a plot of land with plum orchard below the religious school on the c. p. no 1/450, with an area of 230 m² and a greengrocery in the bazaar in Srebrenica on c. p. no. 1/686, with an area of 130 m².219

By analyzing cadastral plans of the town of Srebrenica in the late 19th century, one can see that the maktab building was a large building, located next to the east side of the Carsijska Mosque (this is the site of a large building of the present-day Islamic Center). The waqf greengrocery (a large building) is also located in the northern part of the bazaar (at the same level as the Police Station, on the other bank of the Krizevica).220

Waqf of the Petric MosqueThis waqf was established in the first half of the17th century and it was related

to the maintenance of the mosque in Petric Mahala. It was probably destroyed in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Waqf of the Mosques in Petric Mahala in 1890 had revenue, registered as mu-sakafat, from rental fee in the amount of 10 florins. Revenue, registered as mustagelat, from one third of a cifcija’s (peasant’s) house and from waqf land property was 20 and 4 florins respectively. This year the expenditures of the waqf were: the salaries of the imam (24 florins) and the muezzin (2 florins). The amount of 5 florins was spent on the lighting of the mosque. The waqf had a surplus of 3 florins.221

Waqf of the Petricka Mosque, at the time of the establishment of the land reg-istry of the district of Srebrenica in 1894, had several real properties: the building of the mosque with a building site and a yard on c. p. no. 1/291 with an area of 140 m2; a plum orchard next to the mosque on c. p. no. 1/290 with an area of 350 m2; a building site near the mosque on c. p. no. 1/279 with an area of 30 m2. Furthermore, the waqf had large landed property above the Petric Mahala: Ucina Basca cementery on c. p. no. 247/1 with an area of 26.000 m2, cemeteries on c. p. nos. 205 and 1/312 with respective areas of 1.830 and 500 m2 and a ploughland next to the cemetery on c. p. no. 240 with an area of 1.980 m2.222

217 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 289.218 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 287219 Gruntovna knjiga V, ulozak broj 239.220 Katastarski plan iz 1883.-1885. godine, za K.O. Srebrenicu, razmjera 1:3.125. Katastar Srebrenica.221 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 77.222 Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 460.

72According to waqf budget in 1913, Waqf of the Petric Mosque had revenues

from waqf land in the amount of 40 and waqf real property in the amount of 5 kro-nes. The expenditures were the respective salaries of the imam and the muezzin in the amount of 40 and 5 krones. The mutawalli of the waqf was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.223

The mosque building had larger dimensions than most other mosques in Sre-brenica. The base was a rectangle with sides 10 x 7,5 m. It was built from chopped stone to the uppermost part of the building, with walls 6 meters high and 98 cm thick. It was covered by a hip roof which was in recent times re-roofed with tiles. It had a wooden minaret. It also had a mahfil. It was reconstructed in 1983.224

Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Mosque This was a waqf related to the mosque that was located in the mahala of the

same name, and it dates back to the first half of the 17th century, and according to some, to the late 15th and early 16th centuries (related to the Sultan Bayezid’s Mosque). According to the budget in 1890, the Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Mosque had following revenues: registered as musakafat, 25 florins from rental fee and, registered as mustagelat, 65 florins from waqf land property revenues. The expenditures were the salaries of the imam and the muezzin of the mosque in the amount of 70 and 2 florins respectively. The amount of 15 florins was spent on the lighting. This waqf had a surplus of 3 florins.225 Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Mosque also known as Sarena [Decorated] Mosque in 1894 was the owner of the following land property: mosque building with a building site on c. p. no. 1/400, with an area of 40 m2, cemetery on the lot c. p. no. 1/399 with an area of 360 m2 and a shop with a building site in Carsija on c. p. no. 1/49.226

Waqf of the Crvena Rijeka Mosque, according to the budget in 1913, had rev-enues from waqf land property and rental fees in the amount of 190 krones, of which 160 went to the salary of the imam of this mosque, with a 30 krones surplus. At the time the mutawalli of the waqf was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.227

The mosque building had dimensions 6 x 8,5 m, and was built from chopped stone and wood; it had a wooden minaret and was roofed with tiles. Some researchers believe that the oldest mosque in this place burned down in a fire and that this smaller one was erected instead.228

Three waqfs of the unknown mosques dating back from the 17th centuryWaqfs of the three mosques mentioned by Celebi in the mid 17th century, due to

the devastation of Srebrenica in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, did not survive, and the respective sites of these three mosques is unknown to researchers.

223 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 288.224 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, pp. 286-287. Also see: Madzida Becirbegovic, Dzamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1990, pp. 113-114 and 159.

225 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 73226 Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 457.227 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 287.228 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 286. Also see: Madzida Becirbegovic, Dzamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1990, pp. 113-114.

73Waqf of the Musala

In the early years of the Ottoman rule, a musallah was constructed in Srebreni-ca. It was funded by a special waqf and it encompassed a large complex of land north of the Carsija.

When the musallah was established in Srebrenica, and who its wakif was, it is unknown. However, judging by the construction of the wall it was probably constructed in the 16th century.229

For a long period of time, musallah denoted a large free space in town (intended for mass public and religious gatherings). Over time, its remote parts were turned into a cemetary and in some parts the construction of residential, public and other facilities began. Towards the end of the Ottoman rule ten or so houses and a decorated musallah (as a building intended for praying) were located on Musala. This area became espe-cially interesting for the construction (of roads, public buildings) after the arrival of the Austro-Hungarian authorities and later on.

Waqf Musala in Srebrenica, after the land registry of the district of Srebrenica was established in 1894, had only one, out of a former large complex, registered plot of land which was located north of the Carsija in Srebrenica. At the time the waqf Musala had a plot of land on c. p. no. 98, with an area of 650 m2, and it was located in between the respective newly constructed buildings of the District Administration and a primary school.230

The musallah in Srebrenica had a mihrab which was built in the wall and a mimbar which was made of wood, covered and surrounded by boards. It was located on a plateau with the dimensions 20 x 15 m and it was surrounded by a stone wall two meters high and 100 cm wide, which was covered by a screen. This musallah was 100 m away from the Carsija Mosque. All this existed until 1953.231

Waqf Musala in Srebrenica, according to the budget in 1913, had revenue in the amount of 200 krones. It all came from rental fee of the waqf land property located near the central area (it also includes a shed located on this land) in the amount of 150, as well as the sold garden in the amount of 50 krones. The amount of 100 krones was spent for the reconstruction of the musallah, and the waqf had a surplus of 100 krones that year. The mutawalli of the waqf, as was the case with most other waqfs in Srebrenica, was Ahmet-aga Pasagis.232

According to oral tradition, Eid prayer was performed in the musallah and it was active until 1935. The forest management tore down the musallah and, on this site, constructed their own building which comprised an infirmary, kindergarten,…. The last

229 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 287.

230 Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 459.231 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 287.232 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 288.

74imam of the musallah in Srebrenica was Abid ef. Dozic. This complex, located under the crown of various old fruit trees was a rare cultural and historical monument in this town.233

Waqf of the Skender (Bijela) MosqueThere is every indication that this waqf was established in the late 17th and early

18th centuries when hajji Skender built a mosque on the site of the Catholic church, after the great devastation of Srebrenica. Folk tradition, architecture and historical data are indicative of this. Most researchers into the history of Srebrenica believe that the church in question was a Ragusan church of St. Nicholas, while others believe that it was a church of the Franciscan monastery, St. Mary’s Church.234

According to the budget of the waqf of the Skender Mosque in Srebrenica in 1890, basic revenue, registered as musakafat, came from rental fee in a significant amount of 112 florins. Revenue from waqf land property, registered as mustagelat, was 70 florins. The expenditures were: the respective salaries of the imam and the muezzin of the mosque, in the amount of 122 and 43 florins, the lighting of the mosque in the amount of 15 florins. That year the waqf had a 2 florins surplus.235

After the land registry was established in the district of Srebrenica in 1894, Waqf of the Hajji Skender Mosque in Srebrenica had significant real property: mosque building with the building site and a yard on c. p. no. 362/2, with an area of 270 m2; two plots of a cemetery next to the mosque on c. p. nos. 358/1 and 362/1, with respective areas of 500 and 3.300 m2; cemetery located on the opposite bank of the river on c. p. no. 186, with an area of 7.300 m2; ploughland Landica Njiva on c. p. no. 159 with an area of 14.500 m2. At the time, waqf also owned real property in Carsija: a shop on c. p. no. 1/48, with an area of 15 m2 and a greengrocery on c. p. no. 1/484, with an area of 1.700 m2. The above-mentioned waqf also owned a large land complex on Musala (to the north of the present-day Municipal building) which was classified as cemetery. The plots in question were located on c. p. nos. 1/164, 1/521 and 118/1 with respective areas of 740, 2.640 and 12.560 m2.236

233 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, pp. 285-286.

234 For further reference see: Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975, pp. 149-153.; Mehmed Mujezinovic, Islamska epigrafika, knjiga II, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1974, p. 137.; Madzida Becirbegovic, Dzamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1990, p. 112.; Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 287.; Juraj Kujundzic, Sredn-jovjekovne crkve u Srebrenici, Dobri pastir, god. XVII-XVIII, Sarajevo, 1968, pp. 236-242.; Pavo Andelic, Pogled na franjevacko graditeljstvo XIV i XV vijeka u Bosni, Radovi sa simpozijuma „Sred-njovjekovna Bosna i evropska kultura“, Zenica 1973, pp. 201-206.; Dzemal Celic, Kontinuitet sredn-jovjekovnih formi u doba turske dominacije, Radovi sa simpozijuma „Srednjovjekovna Bosna i evrop-ska kultura“, Zenica 1973, p. 357.; Spomen-crkvica svete Marije u Srebrenici, Franjevacka Provincija Bosna Srebrena, 3/1991, 201-203.; Father Andrija Nikic, PhD, Dzamije na temeljima crkava, Glasnik hrvatskog uljudbenog pokreta, br. 33., Zagreb, 2008, p. 16.; Marijan Sivric, Rod Dobretinic-Latinica (Latincic), trgovci i srebrenicki knezovi, darovatelji franjevackih samostana i crkava u Bosni, Bosna Feanciscana, 30/2009.; Srebrenica u povijesti Bosne Srebrene ili Srebrenicke, ibn-sina.net.

235 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 77236 Gruntovna knjiga X, ulozak broj 461.

75In 1901, this waqf bought a plot from the Ibrahimagic family on c. p. no. 1/681,

with an area of 20 m2.237

Waqf of H. Iskender (Bijela [White]) Mosque, in 1913, from waqf land prop-erty and rental fees from the shops, had revenues in the amount of 250 krones. The expenditures were the respective salaries of the imam and the muezzin of the mosque in the amount of 160 and 80 krones. The surplus was 10 krones. At the time, the mutawalli of the waqf was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.238

Waqf of the madrasah There could have been a madrasah in Srebrenica as far back as its ‘golden age’, during the 17th century. At that time there were some 800 houses, a population of ap-proximately 5.000 inhabitants, a developed bazaar, six Muslim mahalas, six mosques, three maktabs, a takiyah, and a hammam in town. Srebrenica was the center of a vast qadi...239

It is a known fact that at the site of an old and dilapidated religious and educa-tional facility, whose waqf was lost long time ago, in 1866, a new madrasah building was constructed.240 The building was built on the street level, on the plinth made from chopped stone and wood. It had five classrooms and a hall, measuring 20 x 8 x 3 m, and it was roofed with tiles. It was built on the initiative of a group of prominent citi-zens of Srebrenica, who made an agreement, and donated and collected money amonst themselves and built a new more spacious building for the madrasah and also provided funds for the muderis. They also took care of the future funding of the madrasah, that is, maintenance expenses. They founded a special waqf which consisted of several estates, whose revenues were used to fund the madrasah and muderises (salaries, firewood for the winter…).241

Selman-aga, founder of the famous Selmanagic family from Srebrenica, who played an important role in the history of Srebrenica, was the most important wakif (benefactor) for the madrasahs in Srebrenica during the 19th century. Waqf that was founded for the purposes of the maintenance of the madrasah in Srebrenica was donated several propeties by several prominent and wealthy citizens of Srebrenica, both male and female. This can be seen in the official name of this waqf towards the end of the 19th century which was Vakuf hadži Selman-age, hadži Rustem-bega i hadži Ruki-hanume medrese [Waqf of hajji Selman-aga, hajji Rustem-bey and hajji Ruki-hanuma Madrasah]. In addition to the donations made by Selman-aga to the waqf of the madrasah in Srebrenica, Rustem-bey and Ruki(ja)-hanuma also made their donations. This Rustem-bey was the founder of a prominent Rustembegovic fam-ily from Srebrenica. And the only known female wakif in Srebrenica, Ruki(ja)-hanuma, probably also belonged to a prominent family from this town.242

237 Gruntovna knjiga VIII, ulozak broj 382.238 Proračun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 287.239 Evlija Celebi, Putopis, Sarajevo-Publishing, Sarajevo, 1996, p. 99.240 This was recorded in the news in the „Bosna“ magazine, in 1866.241 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska

medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, p. 288.242 Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne Bosne –

76According to the budget in 1890, Waqf of the hajji Selman-aga, hajji Rustem-

bey and hajji Ruki-hanuma madrasah in Srebrenica had revenue, registered as mus-tagelat, in a rather significant amount of 300 florins. It came by way of one-third of 12 tenants’ houses rental fee. This revenue, which probably came from their former serfs in some of the villages around Srebrenica, was donated by the above-mentioned wakifs. A more detailed study would, of course, reveal serfs’ villages where these revenues came from.

An entire amount of 300 florins of annual revenue of the Waqf of the madrasah in Srebrenica was spent on the salary of the madrasah muderis (a teacher).243

In the early 20th century this madrasah was also known under the name Hadži Hasan-agina medresa (Hajji Hasan-aga’s Madrasah). It was probably reconstructed by hajji Hasan-aga Selmanagic, and after the reconstruction, it was named after the sahibi-hajrat.244

Waqf of the Madrasah in Srebrenica, according to the budget of the waqf in 1913, had revenue from waqf land property in a rather significant amount of 810 krones and, economically speaking, it was second strongest in the town and district of Srebrenica. This entire amount was spent on the salary of the madrasah’s muderis. The mutawalli of the Waqf of the madrasah at the time was Haki ef. Dozic.245

A report on the work of Ulema-medzlis [highest Islamic authority] in Sarajevo dating back from 1932, reveals that the madrasah in Srebrenica stopped working.

Waqf of hajji Sulejman-aga, son of hajji sheik Osman-aga The year when the waqfiyya [deed of endowment]246 was made, as well as its

contents, is unknown.

casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 3/2010, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla.

243 Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890, p. 77. It is worth mentioning that the budget in question on p. 73, also mentions Bratunci dzamije vakuf

(Waqf of the Bratunci Mosques). This mosque is located in the place called Bratunac which was part of the district of Srebrenica. Waqf of the mosque in Bratunac in 1890 had revenue of 35 florins and it came in the form of mustagelat from several waqf’s fields and a garden (orchard). The expenditures of the waqf were: the salary of the imam of the mosque in the amount of 25 florins and the repairs of the mosque in the amount of 7 florins. Waqf’s surplus was 3 florins.

Waqf of the Bratunac mosque, according to the budget of the waqf in 1913, had revenue from waqf’s estates in the amount of 208 krones. This amount of money was spent on the salary of the imam of the mosque in the amount of 131 krones and tax, and the waqf’s break even point, in the amount of 77 krones. The mutawalli of this waqf at the time was Avdi-bey Rustenbegovic. (Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 286.).

According to the register of independent waqfs in 1931, as separate waqfs the following are men-tioned: Vakuf Bratunac džamije u Suhoj [Waqf of the Bratunac Mosque in Suha] and Vakuf džamije u Suhoj [Waqf of the Mosque in Suha]. These two waqfs submitted their budget and an-nual financial report jointly. (Spisak sviju samostalnih vakufa na podrucju vakufske direkcije saraje-vske, Vakufska direkcija u Sarajevu, broj 2281/31, Sarajevo, 1932, p. 36.)

244 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, pp. 288-289.

245 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913., Sarajevo, str. 287.246 Zejnil Fajic, Popis vakufnama iz Bosne i Hercegovine koje se nalaze u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblio-

teci u Sarajevu, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga IX-X, Sarajevo, 1983, p. 291.

77Waqf of Avdija RustembegovicWaqfiyya dates back from 1892.247

Waqf of hajji Hasan and hajji Avdija Selmanagic Waqfiyya dates back from 1902.248 It was probably a deed on the funds for the reconstruction of the madrasah in Srebrenica.

Waqf of Maktabi-ibtidaia Maktabi-ibtidaia in Srebrenica was established in the early 20th century. In the academic 1908/09 year, the maktab had 95 students, two mualims, Husejn ef. Dozic and Ali ef. Klancevic, whose respective annual salaries were 640, that is 240 krones.249

According to the respective waqf budgets in 1913, Waqf of Maktabi-ibtidaia in Srebrenica was the wealthiest one and it had the highest revenue. Rather significant revenue of 940 krones came from the waqf’s house in 1912. The expenditures of this waqf were numerous and the highest were: salary of the attendant in the amount of 360, maktab’s lump sum in the amount of 100, and house rental fee in the amount of 360 krones. Lower expenditures were: cleaning of the chimney in the waqf’s house in 1912 in the amount of 10, repairs of the waqf’s house in 1912 in the amount of 20, waqf’s house, a subsidiary to Maktabi-ibtidaia, insurance in the amount of 14, cleaning of the chimney in 1913 in the amount of 10, house repairs in 1913 in the amount of 50, and insurance in 1913, in the amount of 14 krones. Total expenditures of the waqf that year were 938, and the surplus was 2 krones. The mutawalli of the waqf, who took care of everything, was Ahmet-aga Pasagic.250

Waqf of Ali-ef. Selmanagic, son of hajji Hasan-agaWaqfiyya dates back from 1936.251

The importance of waqf in the development of the town of SrebrenicaAs we can see, the town of Srebrenica, from the early years of Ottoman rule

until the beginning of Austo-Hungarian rule, as far as we know, had over twenty sepa-rate waqfs.

Continuous development of the town of Srebrenica from the late 15th century, culminated at the beginning of the second half of the 17th century. At the time (in 1660) Evliya Celebi found in Srebrenica: a developed bazaar with 70 shops and craft work-shops; six Muslim mahalas; six mosques; a takiyah; three maktabs; a hamman, a han. Of course, at the time there were also: a military stronghold, a settlement inhabited by non-

247 Zejnil Fajic, Popis vakufnama iz Bosne i Hercegovine koje se nalaze u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblio-teci u Sarajevu, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga IX-X, Sarajevo, 1983, p. 291.

248 Zejnil Fajic, Popis vakufnama iz Bosne i Hercegovine koje se nalaze u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblio-teci u Sarajevu, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga IX-X, Sarajevo, 1983, p. 291.

249 Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007, pp. 287-288.

250 Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo, p. 288.251 Zejnil Fajic, Popis vakufnama iz Bosne i Hercegovine koje se nalaze u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblio-

teci u Sarajevu, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga IX-X, Sarajevo, 1983, p. 291.

78Muslim population, panaduriste [a place where the trade fair was held] and a monastery with a church. To this day, researchers were unable to determine the respective locations of all six mahalas and mosques in Srebrenica at that time. They are most definitely pres-ent-day mahalas: Carsija, Crvena Rijeka and Petric along with their respective mosques. The location of the remaining three mahalas is completely unknown.

Difficult wars in the late 17th and throughout the 18th centuries, as well as epi-demic diseases, bad years and famine left their mark on the stagnation of the urban development of the town of Srebrenica. Catholic population was almost extinct and on the site of a Catholic church (torn down in 1690) a mosque was built. Muslim popula-tion also suffered losses.

Urban, economic, cultural and religious facilities in Srebrenica were especially hit. Out of former six mosques, three completely disappeared from the stage of the history.

There are neither preserved sources, nor oral tradition on the waqfs and wakifs from the late 16th and early 17th centuries. While it is unknown whether great wakifs existed in Srebrenica at the time, this information is available for some of the neigh-bouring towns (such as Nova Kasaba, Zvornik, Tuzla, Kladanj). Thus, for example, nearby settlement of Nova Kasaba was established and, for the most part, by means of his waqf facilities, built by a prominent wakif Musa-pasha, the Vizier of Budim, in the 17th century.

Of all the known prominent wakifs of the town of Srebrenica, we are only fa-miliar with the following:

Hajji Skender, who, in the early 18th century, probably, on his own expense and his endowment, built present-day Bijela Mosque. He probably made other donations as well. It was for this reason that later on the entire mahala surrounding this mosque was named Skender Mahala.

Hajji Selman-aga, founder of the Selmanagic family, in the first half and the mid 19th century, was the greatest wakif in Srebrenica. He reconstructed Carsijska Mosque, participated in the construction of the madrasah and he also made many other donations.

Respective Selmanagic and Rustembegovic families, also, made many donations.From the second half of the 15th century until the beginning of the Austro-Hun-

garian period, waqfs of the town of Srebrenica had numerous and various facilities. Those were religious, educational, public, economic and other facilites and buildings.252

These include: seven mosques, at least three maktabs, a madrasah, a takiyah, a hammam, a mill, several fountains (water supply systems), two bakeries, several shops, houses, greengroceries, store rooms, a musallah and numerous cemeteries.

Waqfs in Srebrenica were funded by: rental fees from various buildings, es-tates and estate owners, various land tenures (construction sites, ploughlands, plum or-chards...).

Waqf’s expenditures were: maintenance and repairs of waqf’s facilities, light-ing, carpets, cleaning of chimneys, insurance, lump sums, building leases... Of course,

252 Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne Bosne – casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 3/2010, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla.

79waqfs spent the highest amount of money on the salaries of the staff in waqf’s facilities, such as: imams and muezzins in mosques, muderises, mualims and attendants in ma-drasahs and maktabs, waqf’s mutawallis (waqf managers).253

As it can be seen from earlier research, some of the waqfs in the town of Sre-brenica, in different documents and periods, had quite different names. This phenom-enon, that waqfs in the official documents were known under one name, and a different one among the people, is present throughout the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Due to, Vakufska direkcija (Waqf Directorate) in Sarajevo, in 1931, published a list of the official names for all the waqfs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This list was sent to all district waqf and mearif committees in the area of the Waqf Directorate in Sarajevo. Among other things, it also states that ‘… committees and imams so far used different and confusing names for some of the waqfs, and thus quite often caused con-fusion and unnecessary correspondence. So, from now on, all the acts have to bear the names of individual waqfs in the exact way, as indicated in this list.’254

According to this list in the town of Srebrenica, official names of individual waqfs are listed as follows: Crvena rijeka dzamija (the Red River Mosque), Carsijska dzamija (the Carsija Mosque), H. Skender zen. mekteb (Hajji Skender’s Maktab for Girls), H. Skender dzamija (Hajji Skender’s Mosque), Medresa (Madrasah), Mektebi-ibtidaija (Mektebi-ibtidaia), Musala, and Petric dzamija (Petric Mosque).255

Towards a European Town During the Austo-Hungarian rule (after 1878), the town of Srebrenica gradually

changed its urban structure and appearance. The towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in general, in that period of time, went through all sorts of changes and gradually started looking more like European towns.

Some of them became important industrial centers and gradually started look-ing more like European industrial towns (both in structural structure and exterior – Tu-zla, Zenica), while most of them continued pursuing craftwork, petty entrepreneurship (with modern trades) and increased trade and traffic. Those towns that became mili-tary and strategic strongholds of the Monarchy went through rather unique and visible changes....256 One of these towns was Srebrenica which was located near the border, and where the Austro-Hungarian authorities built military barracks and other supporting facilities.

In this paper, we are going to outline only some of the urban changes that the town of Srebrenica suffered in this period.

253 Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeveroistocne Bosne – casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 3/2010, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla.

254 Spisak sviju samostalnih vakufa na podrucju vakufske direkcije sarajevske, Vakufska direkcija u Sa-rajevu, broj 2281/31, Sarajevo, 1932, p. 1.

255 Spisak sviju samostalnih vakufa na podrucju vakufske direkcije sarajevske, Vakufska direkcija u Sa-rajevu, broj 2281/31, Sarajevo, 1932, p. 36.

256 Iljas Hadzibegovic, Bosanskohercegovacki gradovi na razmedu 19. i 20. stoljeca, Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 2004, p. 8.

80Srebrenica experienced strong economic growth; the Ottoman roads were re-

constructed and new roads connecting Srebrenica with other towns in the Middle Drina Valley region were constructed. Mineral resources were explored and their exploitation was begun as well as the use of the medicinal properties of the mineral water of Crni Guber.

Urban development was also intensified. Construction and pavement of a new wide road – street, from the bridge on the Krizevica, north of Carsija, down through Musala began. A road – street, leading from the old center of Srebrenica (below the Carsija Mosque), to the left of the Krizevica through Musala was constructed. In the fol-lowing period, construction of important public buidings next to new roads on Musala, such as district administration – Konak and the primary school building, ensued.

In the northern part of the town, military barracks complex was built, and mili-tary shooting range was at the top of the Petric Mahala. There was also an increased construction of private, business and residential buildings in the architectural styles brought by the Austro-Hungarian authorities (central European, pseudo-domavian…). Srebrenica also got a telephone exchange on the Musala (it was mentioned in 1913).

The following data also provide information on the overall and urban develop-ment of the town of Srebrenica in the late 19th century. According to the 1885 census, Markt, i.e. Trgoviste, Srebrenica had 313 houses and 326 apartments with a population of 1.445 inhabitants. Among them, 883 were Mo-hammedans, 532 were Eastern Orthodox, 34 were Roman Catholics and 9 were Jews. 257

In the late 19th century, that is, according to the 1895 census, the town of Sre-brenica had 378 houses and total population of 1824 inhabitants. Among them, 945 were Mohammedans, 633 were Eastern Orthodox, 110 were Roman Catholics and 8 were Jews. 258

In the Austo-Hungarian cadastral map from 1883-1885, the oldest Orthodox church in the town of Srebrenica was marked, plot c. p. no. 1/606. 259

Serbian Orthodox Parish, in 1900, bought a house and several plots of land on the hillside, close to the north-eastern part of Carsija in Srebrenica. The plots were bought from Doko and Risto Maksic and they were registered in the land register on June 20, 1900. The plots in question are c. p. nos.: 1/469, 1/470, 1/468, 1/471 and 1/474.

260 In 1903, the plot on c. p. no. 1/469 was registered as a church with a church yard. 261 The same year, the parish also owns the plot c. p. no. 96/8 under the name Kacelj. 262

Present day parish Temple of the Holy Virgin was consecrated on August 23 1903, and consecration was performed by metropolitan Ilarion (Radonic).263 Serbian Orthodox parish, in 1923, bought two plots of land with an old house which is located directly above Carsija and close to the south-eastern side of the church from Mustafa

257 Statistika mjesta i ziteljstva Bosne i Hercegovine po popisu naroda od 1. maja 1885, Sarajevo, 1886, p. 154.258 Hauptresultate der volkszahlung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22. April 1895, Landesregier-

ung fur Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Sarajevo, 1896, p. 354.259 Austrougarski katastarski plan grada Srebrenice iz 1883-1885. godine. Razmjer plana 1: 3.125.260 Gruntovna knjiga IV, ulozak broj 193.261 Gruntovna knjiga IV, ulozak broj 193262 Gruntovna knjiga XI, ulozak broj 540.263 Srpska pravoslavna eparhija Zvornicko-tuzlanska, sematizam, Tuzla, 1977, p. 206.

81and Hasan Sejdic. These are the plots located on c. p. nos. 1/467 and 1/466. 264 Also, in 1935, a house was purchased on state plot c. p. no. 118/4. 265 The Parish house in Sre-brenica was erected in 1936.266

After the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 and military operations in the border zone between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, overall, including urban, development of the town of Srebrenica stopped. The town was especially devastated during the First and Second World Wars. This period of stagnation lasted for almost fifty years and Srebrenica started developing again only in the second half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

The town of Srebrenica has a long and rather complex urban development, es-pecially when it comes to classical and mediaeval urban tradition.

In this paper we came to a conclusion that the same applies to the period of the Ottoman rule, that is, from the mid 15th until the end of the 19th centuries. Historical cir-cumstances, at the time, had caused different stages of urban development, raging from devastation and recovery to full development. In this period the town of Srebrenica went through following stages of urban development:

1. Devastation in the second half of the 15th century2. Recovery until the late 16th century3. Golden Age (17th century)4. Devastation in the late 17th and early 18th centuries5. Recovery in the 18th and 19th centuries

Towards the end of the Ottoman rule the town of Srebrenica had over ten physi-cal elements in its urban structure which were mainly the product of previous historical and urban development. These elements are: two strongholds, a bazaar, more than a dozen mahalas and large public spaces. The results of this study indicate the importance of the role of waqf in the urban development of the town of Srebrenica in the last five hundred years. At the time, there were more than twenty different waqfs in Srebrenica and they included important urban facilities (religious, educational, public, economic...). Historical circumstances in general had also caused their decline, and complete disappearance. However, the population and individuals always invested in new waqfs in Srebrenica in order to help raise the town functions of Srebrenica to an appropriate level. By the early 20th century the town of Srebrenica started receiving some of the characteristics of other European towns at the time.

264 Gruntovna knjiga IV, ulozak broj 192.265 Gruntovna knjiga VII, ulozak broj 373.266 Srpska pravoslavna eparhija Zvornicko-tuzlanska, sematizam, Tuzla, 1977, p. 206. Subsidiary Church

of St. Archangel Michael in Srebrenica was consecrated in 1971. The consecration was performed by bishop Longin (Tomic). (Ibid, p. 206.)

82 Sources and References

1. Gruntovne knjige iz 1894. godine za k.o. Srebrenicu. Gruntovnica opstinskog suda u Srebrenici.

2. Katastarski planovi iz 1883. - 1885. godine, za k.o. Srebrenicu, razmjera 1 : 6.250 i 1 : 3.125. Katastar Srebrenica.

3. Knjiga abecedni popis vlasnika nekretnina za k.o. Srebrenicu. Gruntovnica opstinskog suda u Srebrenici.

4. Proracuni vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1890., Sastavljeni po zemaljskom vakufskom povjerenstvu u Sarajevu, Drugi svezak.

5. Statistika miesta i pucanstva Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 1880.6. Statistika mjesta i ziteljstva Bosne i Hercegovine po popisu naroda od 1. maja 1885,

Sarajevo, 1886.7. Hauptresultate der volkszahlung in Bosnien und der Hercegovina vom 22. april 1895.,

Landesregierung fur Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Sarajevo, 1896.8. Proracun vakufa u Bosni i Hercegovini za godinu 1913, Sarajevo.9. Austrougarska topografska karta, razmjer 1:75.000, sekcija Vlasenica und Srebrenica,

pocetak 20. stoljeca.10. Spisak sviju samostalnih vakufa na podrucju vakufske direkcije sarajevske, Vakufska

direkcija u Sarajevu, broj 2281/31, Sarajevo, 1932.11. Evlija Celebi, Putopis, Sarajevo-Publishing, Sarajevo, 1996.12. Odluka o proglasenju Povijesnog podrucja Donji grad u Srebrenici nacionalnim spome-

nikom Bosne i Hercegovine, Komisija/povjerenstvo za ocuvanje nacionalnih spome-nika Bosne i Hercegovine, 7-10. studeni 2006.

13. Hamdija Kresevljakovic, Hamami u Bosni i Hercegovini, 1462-1916, Beograd, 1937.14. Mihajlo J. Dinic, Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovjekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni, SAN, Posebna

izdanja knjiga CCXL, Odeljenje drustvenih nauka knjiga 14, Naucna knjiga, Beograd, 1955.

15. Juraj Kujundzic, Srednjovjekovne crkve u Srebrenici, Dobri pastir, god. XVII-XVIII, Sarajevo, 1968.

16. Adem Handzic, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI vijeku, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1975.17. Mehmed Mujezinovic, Islamska epigrafika, knjiga II, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1974.18. Srpska pravoslavna eparhija Zvorničko-tuzlanska, sematizam, Tuzla, 1977.19. Alija Bejtic, Knezina i knezinska nahija u historiji i likovnom stvaralastvu, Prilozi za

orijentalnu filologiju, XXVI/1976., Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 1978.20. Halima Korkut, O vakufima u sjeveroistocnoj Bosni, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove bib-

lioteke, Knjiga V-VI, Sarajevo, 1978.21. Dragomir Vujicic, Onomasticka grada Mehmed-bega Kapetanovica Ljubusaka, Bosan-

skohercegovacki dijalektoloski zbornik knjiga III, Institut za jezik i knjizevnost u Sa-rajevu, Sarajevo, 1982.

22. Zejnil Fajic, Popis vakufnama iz Bosne i Hercegovine koje se nalaze u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblioteci u Sarajevu, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke, Knjiga IX-X, Sa-rajevo, 1983.

23. Madzida Becirbegovic, Dzamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini, Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1990.

24. Enver Imamovic, Srebrenica i okolica u rimsko doba, Clanci i grada za kulturnu istoriju istocne Bosne, 17, Muzej istocne Bosne, Tuzla, 2002.

25. Rusmir Djedovic, Uloga i znacaj Turali-begovog vakufa u urbanom razvoju grada

83Tuzle, Stav – casopis za drustvena pitanja, kukturu i umjetnost, br. 2, februar 2003, Narodna i univerzitetska biblioteka Dervis Susic, Monos, Tuzla.

26. Iljas Hadzibegovic, Bosanskohercegovacki gradovi na razmedu 19. i 20. stoljeca, Insti-tut za istoriju u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 2004.

27. Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini, Centar za kulturu i obrazovanje Tesanj, Tesanj, 2005.

28. Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Izgled Srebrenice u dubrovackim izvorima (1352-1460), Spomenica Milana Vasica, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Republike Srpske, Spomeni-ca 11, Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka 14, Banja Luka, 2005.

29. Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u Tuzli od XVI do XX stoljeca, Zbornik radova Veliki vakifi Bosne, BZK Preporod, Tuzla, 2006.

30. Hifzija Suljkic, Spomenici islamske kulture u Srebrenici, Sabrani tekstovi knjiga II, BMG, Bosanska medijska grupa, Tuzla, 2007.

31. Tufan Gunduz, Tuzlanski, Bijeljinski i Srebrenicki sidzil (1641-1883.), Arhiv Tuzlan-skog kantona, Tuzla, 2008.

32. Senada Nezirović, Turisticki potencijali Srebrenice, Opcina Srebrenica, Srebrenica, 2008.

33. Adib Dozic, Dozici iz Srebrenice – skica za znanstvenu monografiju, Bastina sjeverois-tocne Bosne – casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 1/2009, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla, pp. 81-95.

34. Rusmir Djedovic, Vakufi u gradu Srebrenici od 15. do 20. stoljeca, Bastina sjeverois-tocne Bosne – casopis za bastinu, kulturno-historijsko i prirodno naslijede, broj 3/2010, Zavod za zastitu i koristenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog naslijeda Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla.

35. Desanka Kovacevic-Kojic, Srednjovjekovna Srebrenica XIV-XV vijek, SANU, Poseb-na izdanja knjiga DCLXVIII, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knjiga 19, Beograd, 2010.

36. Rusmir Djedovic, Urbani razvoj grada Srebrenice u osmanskom periodu sa posebnim osvrtom na ulogu vakufa, Zbornik radova sa naucnog skupa „Naucni aspekti kulturno historijskog naslijeda Srebrenice“, odrzanog 26. 10. 2011. godine u Srebrenici, JU Ar-heoloski muzej „Rimski Municipijum“, Skelani – Srebrenica, 2012. (in preparation).

84

Appendices

The plan of Srebrenica in 1783

The town of Srebrenica on the topographic map in 1894

85

The plan of the center of the town of Srebrenica in the late 19th century

The plan of the Skender and Crvena Rijeka Mahalas in the late 19th century

86

The town of Srebrenica in the topographic map in the early 20th century

Picture postcard of Srebrenica in 1906

87

Adib DOZIC, PhD.

GENOCIDE IN SREBRENICA PARADIGM OF BOSNIACIDE‘Genocide goes beyond mere evil of destroying individuals’ (K. Doubt)

Summary

Researchers are not familiar with an undeniable historical fact, that, from the very beginning of the creation of national leagues and nation-states in the Balkans, continuously, by those same political subjects, a crime against Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state was being committed. Bosnian neighbours’ hegemonic, national programs, based on ideological matrix of nation – state, represented a basic driving force to political elites, political parties, governments, armies and states to commit, from time to time, the crime of genocide against Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state. This is a special type of criminal homicide, unacceptable to human humanum, the murder of a global social group as such, the murder of its essential, pluralistic substantiality, which goes beyond the crime of genocide as a crime that destroys individuals. This type of crime is called sociocide, which in this case is termed bosniacide. Genocide in Srebrenica, although it can be seen as a unique occurrence of genocide, in its essential and phenomenological core it is not, but, on the contrary, it represents a paradigm of bosniacide, as a concrete form of sociocide.Key words: sociocide, bosniacide, genocide, Srebrenica, Bosnian-Herzegovinian society.

Introduction

All the challenges for scientific understanding of the genocide in Srebrenica have not been completely and fully addressed to date. In scientific terms, and not to mention ideological and political practice, deliberate, and at times perfidiously hiddnen, and quite often open disowning and distorting of facts are still present. Various types of violence and crimes, including the crime of genocide against Bosnian-Herzegovnian people and Bosnian-Herzegovnian society, and the crime of genocide against Bosniaks in the UN safe area of Srebrenica committed in July 1995, indicate that there is a need to, through theoretical and scientific methods, shed light on the causes, aims, purpose, intent, character and other aspects of the genocide in Srebrenica, as well as genocide as a criminal act in general. Although it can be explained, understood and ‘fitted’ into one of the conventional terms of the traditional theory of genocide such as: war crime, crime against civilians, mass murder, genocidal massacre, genocide, culturocide,

88ethnocide, homocide et al, genocide against Bosniaks in the United Nations safe area of Srebrenica, needs to be analyzed from the point of view of the paradigm, for, in its cruelty, brutality, perfidity of hiding and denial, method, time of the occurrence (late 20th century), international protection of the ‘safe’ area of Srebrenica, this genocide truly goes beyond a single genocidal occurrence and was not the final aim of the masterminds and architects of genocide. On the contrary, genocide in Srebrenica was, unfortunately, only a means to a larger goal of the destroyer of Bosnia, its society and state, the crime of bosniacide. In this paper, we are going to point to the fact that the genocide in Srebrenica represents, exactly that, the paradigm of bosniacide, that is, only one of the more memorable examples of continuous genocidal crime against Bosnian society.267

I. Genocide in Srebrenica is a non-Bosnian occurrence

This statement might, for a brief moment, be confusing for some of the analysts of the happenings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and especially for the understanding of the genocide against Bosniaks in the United Nations safe area of Srebrenica in 1995. Provided we make a distinction between the scientific understanding and ideological orthodoxies, we will see that the genocide in Srebrenica was the work of foreign political, ideological and military actors. In order for this statement to become scientifically valid, it is imperative to see the genocide in Srebrenica, exactly as such, as a concrete example of sociocide. As such type of crime, it goes beyond the traditional definition of genocide268 which treats genocide as a mass murder of an ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Traditional definition of genocide does not include a wider social context of negative consequences of the murder of one ethnical group in a pluralistic society such as Bosnian society. Genocidal murder of one ethnical group in a pluralistic society, at the same time, in a wider social context, represents the murder of the society as such, as a social fact sui generis, taken in Durkheim’s sense of the word. The shortcomings of the traditional definition of genocide have been pointed out by many researchers.269 The shortcomings of the traditional theory of genocide

267 From this point on, in some cases, the compound Bosnian-Herzegovinian will simply be replaced by ‘Bosnian society’, for one simple reason and that is the fact that throughout its millennium long his-tory, until 1878, both the name and heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina were known under the name Bosnia. These two names denoting Bosnian society, unique Bosnian culture and tradition, unified Bos-nian state, were introduced after the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy occupied Bosnia in 1878.

268 In Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 11 December 1948, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a) killing members of the group;b) causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group;c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in

whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births among the group;e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group; (Convention on the Prevention and Punish-

ment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by Resolution 260a, III, 9 December 1948) 269 The most important are: Ted Gurr, Barbara Harff, Lio Kuper et al.

89are, precisely, the omission of political groups and institutions as agents (executors) of genocide, as well as the omission of society (global social group) as objects of genocide. Genocide, from the sociological point of view, is a social occurrence, and, first and foremost, caused by social factors. Consequently, this statement raises several questions: What are the social (primary and secondary) causes of genocide in Srebrenica, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in general? The second question: Why was the genocide in Srebrenica committed?, and was it only a means to a specific ‘hidden’ aim? The third question is: Who is the true agent (mastermind) of the genocide in Srebrenica, and who were the executors (implemetators) of the genocidal murder of over 12.000 individuals?.270 When we analyze the phenomenon of the agent of genocide at the level of collective activism, it is important to make a distinction between the mastermind (‘architect’), who is the primary agent of genocide, and executor, who is merely a secondary agent in regard to the mastermind. Integral part of this question is also the question whether an individual, as such, can be the agent of a genocidal act when the act in question in its scope, complexity of execution and overall characteristics is beyond the possibility of an individual.

In order to answer these two questions it is important to explain several levels of interactive relations among individual social and historical phenomena in their phenomenological and practical context, such as:a) The crisis of rationality in the functioning of the Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia – Bosnian-Herzegovinian society - sociocide,b) Bosnian-Herzegovinian society – aggression – genocide, andc) Ideology of genocide – Bosnian-Herzegovinian society – genocide.Of course, social conditions of the genocide in Srebrenica could not be broken down to these three factors of social relations, but they truly are the most important for the understanding of our subject matter. For a more complete elaboration of the genocide in Srebrenica it is necessary to include historical, economic, cultural, religious, political, ideological as well as other factors which are important for the full cognitive understanding of it. To date, neither of these questions has been entirely, in a satisfactory manner, researched, from the point of view of the sociological theory. In the process of planning of the bosniacide, ruling political elites from Serbia and Montenegro, and having in mind centuries-long coexistence of the Bosnian sub-identities and the existence of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society as a separate identity, through a planned aggression on the part of the legal armed force – JNA,271 plan and form

270 There is a number of different data on the number of victims of genocide, depending on the source, relevant time et al. From the formal legal point of view, according to the valid figures which, at the time being, have been determined by the Commission for Srebrenica and submitted in their final report which deals with the genocidal massacre in the period 11-19 July 1995, less than 8 000 Bos-niaks were killed. These data cannot be regarded as scientifically relevant data since the genocide in Srebrenica was not committed only in the period 11-19 July 1995, but throughout the entire period of life in the enclave, that is, in the period April 1992-July 1995. All the victims that were killed in this period (by shelling, starvation, fear, demolition of buildings et al.) represent the victims of genocide. A book entitled Zrtve srebrenicke apokalipse, mentions by first and last name, place of birth and place of death, 12 089 citizens who were killed in the Srebrenica enclave. For more information see: A. Mirhovic, Z. Salihovic, A. Krzalić, Zrtve srebrenicke apokalipse, Tuzla, 2002. godine, J.W. Honig-N. Both, Srebrenica hronika ratnog zlocina, Ljiljan, Sarajevo, 1997.

271 ‘It is important to point out that, according to testimonies of witnesses, soldiers of the Bosnian Serb

90various paramilitary units,272 instrument parts of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society by constructing the myth of blood, land, revenge, and creating criminals.273 Genocide itself, in this case, was not the aim but a means to achieve a desired goal, bosniacide. Consequently, the ‘hidden aim’ of the aggresion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as genocide in Srebrenica, can be found in the political interests of the national programs that could not be realized without the implementation of the sociocide as bosniacide. As there were no sufficient internal troops to dehumanize Bosnian-Herzegovinian society,274 the aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out. The aim of this aggressive war was to destroy Bosnian-Herzegovinian society in a way that, by planting various forms of fear, the critical mass of the non-Serb population be displaced outside Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the population be forcibly transferred (read: ghettoed) within the borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and those who would not accept any of these dehumanizing conditions, through the crime of genocide, be removed from Bosnia and Herzegovina. This latter was what happened with Bosniaks in Srebrenica who did not want to move to other states, or agree to move to a ghetto, in Bosnia and

Army were not the only ones, but also, the Army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) present during the takeover of Srebrenica... elements of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) including the Novi Sad Corps and ‘Uzice Corps’, as well as irregular forces, loyal to Arkan, were seen by many witnesses in, and around Srebrenica. Whether these additional troops were un-der the command of the suspects, or under different commands: mass executions, described in the indictment, were obviously systematic, organized by military or political leaders of the Serb admini-stration in Pale, obviously with close support from the Army of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. (the Hague indictment for genocide, complicity in genocide, crime against humanity, violation of the law and customs of war’ against R. Karadic, IT-95-/18, confirmed on 31 May 200? and R. Mladic, IT-95-/18 confirmed on 8 November 2002)

272 ‘Leaders of the paramilitary units, such as Vojislav Seselj and Arkan, were given full access to communications, secret police, military command and weapon storages by Milosevic. These people created private paramilitary units and were in close cooperation with regular Serb troops which were causing terror in eastern and north-eastern Bosnia.’ (M. A. Sells, Iznevjereni most religija i genocid u Bosni, ITD „Sedam“, Sarajevo, 2002, p 101.)

273 ‘Leaders of paramilitary groups were working on the creation of the brutality code. Arkan, leader of the paramilitary unit called Tigrovi (Tigers), used his command center in the small town of Erdut, as the center for training. Serbian recruits were trained in such a way that, in enemy combat, they did not have the right to spare children, women and old people. Serbian military commanders showed reporters and their own troops how to slid a human throat by making slaughtering of pigs an integral part of the training (…) The mask transformed the identity. Before putting the mask, a member of the paramilitary group was a part of the multireligious community in which Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs, Slavic Muslims, Jews, Romani and others lived together. Those were his friends, colleagues from work, neighbors, lovers, his wife’s cousins. Once he would put on the mask, he would become a Serb hero; those that he tortured were Muslim shit and Turks, traitors of the race and murderers of Christ – Lazar of Serbia. (M.A.Sells, op. cit. pp. 103-105.)

274 ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a separate society, separate cultural area. Three Bosnian com-munities have never lived in complete isolation. Different customs and mentalities permeated (and I believe they still do) in a society different than the ones in Croatia and Serbia. Unique Bosnian cultural area can best be seen in the things that make Bosnian Croats and Serbs different than their fellow countrymen in Croatia and Serbia. This difference is represented by the Bosnians who share their life with Islam and the presence, however sublimated, of a different state tradition. These are the elements that created these complex identities, which are not typical of homogenous societies. It is precisely because Bosnia was an integral cultural area with a different historical identity, that it cannot be compared to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a state, and not a society.’(I. Banac, Cijena Bosne, Evropa danas, Zagreb, 1994, p. 108.)

91Herzegovina, designated to them. The only other option that the architects of Greater Serbia had, to have the area of Srebrenica ethnically cleansed, was the crime of genocide. They, according to a preconcieved program, did exactly this. It follows that the genocide in Srebrenica was not a random occurrence, an isolated case, but on the contrary, it was a planned, monstruous means of the carrying out of sociocide (bosniacide), as the only way to implement the anachronistic ‘one nation-one state’ concept. If there had been a strong intra-Bosnian antagonism in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, the agents of national programs (states and their political and military elites) would not have had the need to carry out the aggression and within the framework of aggression commit: genocide, culturocide, ecocide, memoricide and bosniacide as sociocide. After this proposition, from the point of view of the sociological understanding of genocide, a justified question, What segements of society contain social conditions of genocide?, arises. It is a known fact that the social crisis points, within the framework of social structure, are its subcultural elements. Discussing social crisis, which also includes social and systematic disintegration, J. Habermas mentions four possible crisis tendencies.275 Characteristics of social crisis are manifested in several basic sub-social segments. These are: economic crisis, crisis of rationality, identity crisis, and motivation crisis. All these sub-forms of social crisis primarily struck Yugoslavia, and indirectly, through an attempt of the political elite to solve them, they were also transferred to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society. Consequently, the crisis of Yugoslavia was not caused by the antagonism among the structures of Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, but on the contrary, the crisis of Yugoslavia caused aggression and genocide against Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state. Social conditions of genocide committed in Srebrenica, and generally in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, lie in the crisis of rationality in the functioning of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and not in the antagonism within the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society. The crisis of rationality in the functioning of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia spread like a cancer into economic, political, social and cultural as well as other sub-systems of Yugoslavia. Interactively, these sub-system crises interdependently conditioned, complicated and finally escalated. The analysis of the sample of the Yugoslavian crisis is a relevant sociological question for the understanding , not only of the crime of bosniacide, but also the practice of genocide and the method which was used to commit this crime. Social and political actions of the Yugoslav bureaucratic state and political as well as party and police elite did not lead to a proper goal, on the contrary, these actions resulted in social inequality, which in turn, produced various forms of social destruction and degradation. On the one hand, social destruction breeds formation and development of destructive ideologies, on the other hand destructive ideologies breed diversity and strength of social destructiveness. By discussing the question of the ideology of genocide we come to the third level of interactive relations, both primary and secondary, factors of genocide in Srebrenica, and those are interactive relations among ideology of genocide – Bosnian-Herzegovinian society – genocide. Historical description of the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, its brutality and dehumanization, unequivocally, indicate that the genocide in Srebrenica,

275 J. Habermas, Problemi legitimacije kasnog kapitalizma, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1982, p. 59.

92among other things, was motivated by the national messianic politics.276 ‘Aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina was thus in mass consciousness of the everyday and public opinion minimized and represented as the fulfillment of Serbian and Croatian national mission in this life on Earth.’277

The phenomenon of national messianism, as one of the spiritual and idealistic as well as ‘cultural’ conditions for genocide, needs to be analyzed separately, because it still has mass attraction in certain sub-Bosnian national, political and cultural identities.278 What is especially disconcerting is the fact that national messianism is presented as a cultural model. For this reason, one of the most important questions in contemporary sociology is: Where are its social roots, and how can we remove them from certain social layers of the Bosnian sub-identities? It is worth mentioning that national messianism is not a Bosnian product. 279 The answer to the question, Who conducted genocide in Srebrenica?, is: Yugoslavia, through its military and political representatives, the army and the police of the Republica Srpska, which were politically instrumentalized and logistically fully equipped by Yugoslavia. Why is it necessary to point this out? In order to point to the fact that the agent of genocide can be: an army, that is, a military force, a state,280 a political party, a class, but it cannot be an individual who does that on his own behalf, nor the people as a whole. Bosnian neighbors, from the moment they embarked on a fight for their constituency, started using, as part of the permanent state and political practice, the crime of genocide against Bosnian society and Bosniaks.

Genocidal suffering of Bosniaks in the period 1992-1995, was processed before the International Court of Justice. We already have cases reduced to final judgments upon individuals as well as states.281 Especially important is the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case: Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro. This judgment represents an important international legal act for several reasons. First, this judgment confirms that the crime of genocide was committed against

276 For a more comprehensive reading on the ideologies of national messianism E. Zgodic, Ideologija nacionalnog mesijanstva, VKBI, Sarajevo, 1999.

277 E. Zgodic, op. cit., p. 10.278 ‘We can, at this very point, say that the Bosniak messianic consciousness, especially regarding na-

tional and state or cultural messianism, did not develop within the Bosniak national self-conscious-ness as a unique, clearly formed and articulate dimension of national ideology.’ (E. Zgodic, op.cit., pp. 14-15.)

279 Discussing the ideology of national messianism, E. Zgodic sees the origin of this ideology in Chris-tian theology. He came to this conclusion through the analysis of retheologization of politics in the example of political theology of Carl Schmitt. ‘His entire political theory and his entire ideological science from the scientific as well as pseudo-scientific aspect, he deducted from the basic thesis that all basic political terms are nothing but secular terms of Christian theology. Modern politics, accord-ing to him, is a secularly stuffed Christian political theology.’ (E. Zgodic, op. cit., pp. 22-23.)

280 The question of crime committed on the part of one state was discussed for the first time from the legal point of view in 1945 at the Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, which was established by the allied forces to convict Nazi crimes. The nature of those crimes was defined in Article 6 of the tribunal’s Charter, which lists three greatest crime:, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity.’ (Group of authors, Crna knjiga komunizma, p. 14.)

281 See: PRESUDA Medunarodnog suda pravde: Bosna i Hercegovina protiv Srbije i Crne Gore, 26. februara 2007. godine, Institut za istrazivanje zlocina protiv covjecnosti i medunarodnog prava Uni-verziteta u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 2008.

93Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Second, it confirms the crime of genocide against Bosniaks as a legal fact, legally confirmed by the highest judicial authority in the system of the Organization of the United Nations. Third, this judgment was made in regard to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Fourth, this judgment is important for legal practice; fifth, this judgment is important for the reasons of justice and righteousness towards the victims of the crime of genocide. In the dispositive part of the judgment, it was, among other things, ‘established that, in regard to the genocide committed in Srebrenica in July 1995, Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide (pointed out by A. D.) in accordance to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’282.

It is precisely these filed cases and final court judgments, both before the International and before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that, beyond doubt, show that genocide against Bosniaks is both a social and a legal fact, and as such it should also be scientifically elaborated. The final judgment of the International Court of Justice to the generals and officers of the Bosnian Serb army, Radovan Krstic, Vidoje Blagojevic283 and Dragan Jokic respective cases proved beyond doubt that the crime of genocide was committed. Paragraph 688 of the Judgment against Radoslav Krstic, explicitly reads: As a result of the foregoing discussions, General Krstic is to be found guilty of: - genocide- persecutions; and- murder’.284

Deliberating the Appeal of General Krstic on the finding that genocide was committed in Srebrenica, the Trial Chamber rejected the appeal and decided regarding this part of the finding as follows: Stringent requirements which must be satisfied before this conviction is imposed reflect the gravity of this crime. The gravity of the crime of genocide is reflected in the stringent requirements. These requirements - the demanding proof of specific intent, which are difficult to find, and the showing that the group was targeted for destruction in its entirety or in substantial part – guard against the danger that convictions for this crime will be imposed lightly. Where these requirements are satisfied, however, the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name. By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide (pointed out by A.D.). They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic

282 Ibid, p. 231.283 ‘The Trial Chamber is convinced that the criminal acts committed by the Bosnian Serb forces were

all parts of one scheme to commit genocide of Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, as reflected in ‘Krivaja 95’ operation, the ultimate objective of which was to eliminate the enclave, and therefore, the Bosnian Muslim community living there. (Blagojevic, IT-02-60-T, Presuda, 17. januara 2005., paragraf 674).

284 Judgment in the case Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal v. Krstic, Case no. IT-98-33-T of 2 August 2001, p. 286.

In Encyclopedia of genocide, in three instances (pp. 125, 215. and 637-640) there is an explicit reference to genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period 1992-1995. In April (1992, op. A.D.) Bosnian Serb forces, aided by paramilitary forces from Serbia, began a carefully planned campaign in which they systematically persecuted Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks, op. A.D.) from towns and villages of the eastern and northern Bosnia, and there were numerous other ex-amples of genocidal massacres of Muslims (Bosniaks, op. A.D.) committed on the part of Serbs. (Encyclopedia of genocide, p. 640.) (pointed out by A.D.)

94of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically, killed them solely on the basis of their identity. The Bosnian Serb forces were aware, when they embarked on this genocidal venture that the harm would continue to plague Bosnian Muslims. The Appeals Chamber unequivocally states that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide (pointed out by A. D). Those responsible will bear the stigma and it will serve as a warning to all those who may, in the future, contemplate the commission of such a heinous act. In concluding that some members of the VRS Main Staff of intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, the Trial Chamber did not depart from legal requirements for genocide. The defence appeal on this issue is dismissed.’285 Ruling in the case against Radoslav Krstic is limited to a specific period of time and specific territory (July 1995, Srebrenica), which, provided it be considered in isolation from other judgments and indictments, could lead to a wrong conclusion that the genocide was committed only in Srebrenica and only in July 1995, which is not true. In the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and others, crimes committed in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period 1992-1995 are treated as genocide. ‘During Slobodan Milosevic trial numerous evidence were presented which suggested that genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina started as early as the spring of 1992, which was confirmed by an interim ruling in this case on 6 June 2004. Namely, according to this judgment, genocide was confirmed in seven Bosnian-Herzegovinian towns: Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi.’286 Legal qualification of mass killings in Bosnia and Herzegovina through the crime of genocide was also confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments. ‘European Court of Human Rights, in July 2007, made a judgment thus confirming that in June 1992 Serb forces committed genocide against Bosniaks in Doboj. Naimely, in 1999, in Germany, Jorgic287 was convicted of genocide, after which he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. However, the judges in Strasbourg confirmed the ruling of the German court.’288 Legal practice of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also confirms that the crime of genocide against Bosniaks is an undeniable social and legal fact. Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on 16 October 2009, in the first ruling sentenced Milorad Trbic to a 30 years’ life imprisonment for genocide in Srebrenica. Let us remind ourselves, as an assistant security commander of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of the Republica Srpska, from July 10 to November 30, 1995, within the framework of a joint criminal enterprise, Trbic took part in the operations of capturing, detaining and executing, and afterwards burying and hiding of the bodies of the executed Bosniaks from Srebrenica. Appeals Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed the first ruling, and thus Milorad Trbic became the first person

285 Judgment in the case the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal v. Krstic, paragraphs 37-38.286 E.Becirevic, Genocid na Drini, Buybook, Sarajevo, 2009, p. 16.287 Nikola Jorgic Jorga was convicted in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia state court in

Dusseldorf and sentenced to four life terms and eight prison terms of seven to nine years. Jorgic was convicted for genocide of Bosniaks, which he and his group committed in the area of Doboj. Jorgic was the first person in Europe who was convicted for the crime of genocide after the war.

288 Ibid, p. 17.

95who was given final conviction for genocide in Srebrenica by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

To date all those convicted for genocide in Srebrenica289 by the Hague Tribunal for War Crimes, did not commit these crimes on their own behalf, but acting on behalf of the Army of the Republica Srpska, in order to achieve preconceived task of a consciously devised political goal, implementation of the idea of Greater Serbia. By stating this, we begin to answer our second question: ‘What motivated genocide?’. It was motivated by the idea of achieving a ‘hidden’ political goal – bosniacide. The victim of genocidal act were not only Bosniaks as an ethnic group but also Bosnian-Herzegovinian society. On the one hand, bosniacide represents a ‘hidden’ political goal, and on the other, it represents a means, bloody ‘methodological’ process used to achieve a goal. Only after this ‘hidden’ goal is achived, the ideological and political program of Greater Serbia could be realized. Unfortunately, the entire program of this crime was devised by intelectuals, and not by ordinary citizens, craftsmen, traders, agricultural, administrative and other workers. Facts are an unequivocal proof of the truth that the main protagonist of genocide in Srebrenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina was the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), whose political and military institutions tried to implement the program. In order to implement the planned program, its protagonist, the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, created the Bosnian Serb army,290 and used it to embark on a process of destruction and dehumanization of Bosnian-Herzegovinian society. Instrumentalized, immediate executor were the army and police forces of the Republica Srpska, paramilitary units and individuals, acting on behalf of the state and military institutions. Therefore, individuals, institutions and collective political subjects, such as the state, bear responsibility for this crime. Responsibility is individual, but it cannot be reduced to individuals only, because individuals did not do it on their own behalf, but on behalf of, and for the good, and by the order of the political and military commanders of the Republica Srpska. Only after this fact is proven and accepted, it becomes clear that the crime of genocide was not committed by Serbs as a people and that they have to be acquitted of any guilt. In line with this, the guilt cannot be reduced to individual responsibility only because an individual does not have the power to carry out a complex collective crime as such unless he is not a part of the collective identity which has huge military and political power, that is, the kind of power that the state has.

289 Radislav Krstic was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment, Vidoje Blagojevic to 18 years’ imprison-ment and Dragan Jokic to 9 years’ imprisonment.

290 ‘Nominal retreat of JNA troops from Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out on May 19. However, Belgrade authorities claimed that 80% members of the Yugoslav Army were Bosnian Serbs who have the right to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina and fight on the side of the Serbian forces in the Repub-lica since the JNA retreated. The result was: ‘force of at least 30.000 men armed with tanks, artillery, multiple rocket launchers and a large stock of ammunition, was left to fight for Serb cause. These Bosnian soldiers of JNA and their ammunition were seized by the Army of Bosnian Serbs, which was formed on 12 May 1992, by the decision of the president of Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) Radovan Karadzic and his associates. Although the JNA forces allegedly retreated, it is a generally accepted belief that its soldiers, both active duty and reserve component, continued operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the side of the Serbian forces. The troops of the Uzice Corps from Serbia and JNA army reserve from Montenegro continued to attack Bosnian and Croatian positions in Bosnia and Her-zegovina. Since its armed troops were actively involved in directing attacks on the territory of another state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) represents one of the sides in the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.’ (Ratni zlocin u Bosni i Hercegovini, Izvještaj Amnesty international i Helskini watcha od početka rata u BiH do rujna 1993. godine, Zagreb, 1993, p. 35)

96II. The murdering of Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina (or) Bosniacide is still in progress

Since sociology is the study of social processes, which consist of social actions of people and groups, it is completely reasonable to ask a question: ‘Is the process of bosniacide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even after the genocide in Srebrenica in 1995 still in progress?’. Since the social and political factors that caused, devised, and committed genocide in Srebrenica are still present, it logically follows that bosniacide, under altered circumstances and modified methods of action, is still in progress. Genocide committed against Bosniaks in Srebrenica in 1995, as an ethnic group at the same time, represents the crime against a religious group, if one knows that Islam is, not only one of the factors which had a great impact on Bosniak national identity, but also a surviving Bosniak religion. This viewpoint completely ‘fits’ the traditional definition of genocide where genocide is defined as an act committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnical, racial or religious group...’. Bosniacide, from the aspect of modern social study of genocide, inadvertently raises two important questions, and those are: defining Bosnian-Herzegovinian society as a separate social group which the crime of genocide was committed against, and the lasting of bosniacide after the aggressive war, that is, its continuation in peace times. The first question is much more straightforward (more unambiguous) than the second one. Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, as we have already pointed out, is truly a unique, global social group, with recognizable, pluralistic characteristics. The crime of genocide against any ethnic, political, religious or any other subcultural group in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, at the same time represents the crime of genocide against that society as a whole. Through the genocidal act of killing Bosniaks, the quintessence of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state, the killing of Bosnia in Bosnia is being carried out, the killing of its essential pluralistic characteristics (national, cultural, religious, traditional). In a pluralistic society such as Bosnian, it is not possible to kill only a part of it, without, at the same time, killing that society as a collective identity. ‘Unity in diversity’ (of traditions, religions, ethnicities, nationalities, cultures and multicultures) give Bosnian society the characteristics of a unique social identity, that is, a unique social group. If genocide is committed against one part of ‘unity in diversity’, then, it also represents genocide against a whole group as such. To kill Bosnia in Bosnia, was precisely the main aim of the architect of genocide, as a means of accomplishing the desired political goal. As this goal was not, completely, realised during the aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to ‘the miracle of the Bosnian resistance’, that is, due to inherent strength of Bosnian society to survive as such, the architects of bosniacide, that is, the killing of Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even today, through various political, economic, cultural, educational activities, are attempting to turn Bosnian characteristics into non-Bosnian ones.

The social context in which Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and state exist today are somewhat altered, but not as much as to end bosniacide, as a form of genocide. It is because the protagonists, individual and collective, of the genocide in Srebrenica are still active and did not give up their hegemonic programs. Today they want to achieve their goals through the alleged advocating for the preservation, ‘sealing’, of the Dayton state organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which from one day to the

97next, proves to be dysfunctional, irrational and above all, inappropriate for the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society. The Dayton state organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina today represents the main obstacle for a faster and a higher quality reintegration of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, and its more efficient integration into the European and global standards of the social and political organisation of society, states and lives of people (citizens) in general. Internal ethnical and regional homogenisation of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian state territory is an ongoing process, and unfortunately, in some areas it is completely finished, despite modest results regarding the return of the refugees and displaced persons. This process is especially unfavorable for Bosniaks because it ghettoes them to two larger enclaves: the Una-Sana and the Bosnian-Neretva. By preventing the return of Bosniaks to their pre-war homes the process of destruction and disintegration of their existential and cultural substance continues. It is imperative to point out that without Bosnia and Herzegovina, the existence of Bosniaks as a political people is impossible, and vice versa, without Bosniaks the existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and even the name Bosnia, is disputable. Poverty in economic terms and high rate of unemployment among the Bosnian-Herzegovinian population do not only produce poverty in economic terms and economic dependence on others, but also provide a fertile ground for the creation of various destructive ideologies, and first of all, the reaffirmation of the destructive ideologies of the past. Political, scientific and intellectual crypting of the truth about the aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina, genocide against Bosniaks and bosniacide committed during the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina, also represent perfiduous continuation of bosniacide. What also needs to be pointed out here is the reserved attitude on the part of some Bosniak intellectuals regarding the problems of their own people. A rather slow pace of working of the Hague Tribunal for War Crimes and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not contribute to a faster resolvement of bosniacidal processes. Let us mention that only 19 indictments for the genocide in Srebrenica have been filed to date and that only four executors were convicted for genocide. (R. Krstic, V. Blagojevic, D. Jokic, M. Trbic). ‘Humanitatian’ – planned, that is ‘covert’ displacement of working population from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Western European countries, USA and Australia, represents an important process of the destruction of the demographic structure of Bosnian society, which also, represents the act of bosniacide. This process is being carried out with the blessing of the International Community representatives and their active part in the process. Discriminating, fragmented and uncoordinated, with generally accepted international standards and norms, legistlation discriminates against the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina in realization of their basic human rights. Segregation in the education system, dual citizenship and many other examples, indicate that bosniacide is very much alive. Bosnian Muslim low self-esteem, which, discussing the character traits of Bosniaks, late Alija Isakovic, among other things, pointed out describing Bosniaks as people who are ‘first and foremost obssessed by belittling of their own, their own name, religion, customs, past’, needs to be rooted out by affirming historically confirmed cultural and humane values of this Bosnian people.

98 Various prejudices and stereotypes about Bosnia and its society, especially when it comes to Bosniaks and Islam are still present. Very negative and destructively dangerous impact on the integration of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society represents a malevolent, and unfounded, linking of Bosniaks to certain terrorist groups. Historical fact is completely opposite and has unequivocally confirm, on countless occasions, proven Bosnian Muslim openess to others and different,291 Bosnian Muslim tolerance and coexistence with other collective identities as a rule for their own existence. The above mentioned examples unequivocally prove that even 17 years after the genocide was committed in Srebrenica, there is a ‘peace time’ killing of Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All the examples of these processes give us the right to conclude that genocide in Srebrenica represents the paradigm of bosniacide, and that after the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina and its society, it is not completely stopped but is in progress to this day.

Conclusion

Genocide in Srebrenici, although it can be viewed as an isolated occurrence, in its essential and phenomenological core, it is not; on the contrary, genocide in Srebrenica is the paradigm of bosniacide as a concrete form of the crime of sociocide. The masterminds of the hegemonistic programs (political, military and cultural elite, political party, state), in order to implement their own programs, planned the crime of sociocide, in the form of bosniacide. To kill Bosnian-Herzegovinian society, a millennium old ‘unity in diversity’ concept, was the only way to implement hegemonistic programs. In order to implement this preconcieved program, its protagonists embarked on the dehumanization of Bosnian-Herzegovinian society and the destruction of its state. Genocide in Srebrenica was not the aim in itself, but a means to achieve the preconcieved goal of bosniacide. Therefore, the aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the genocide committed in Srebrenica, which was an intergral part of it, represent a ‘hidden’ aim of the realization of the formulae ‘one nation-one state’ in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society which is highly inappropriate of it and could not be conducted without the implementation of bosniacide as a genocidal crime.

291 For a more detailed account of Bosnian Muslim openess to others, as one of the basic moral characteristics of Bosnian Muslim national indentity, see: A. Dozic, Bosnjacka nacija, BKC, Sarajevo, 2003, pp. 99-113.

99

References

1. Anderson, Benedikt, Nacija: Zamisljena zajednica, Plata, Beograd, 1998. 2. Avdic, Hakija, Polozaj Muslimana u Sandzaku, Biblioteka Kljucanin, Sarajevo, 1991.3. Becirević, Edina, Genocid na Drini, Buybook, Sarajevo, 2009.4. Bisic, Mustafa, Ratni zlocin i genocid, zbirka pravnih dokumenata sa sudskom praksom,

ZAP, Sarajevo, 1997.5. Bojic, Mehmedalija, Uzroci genocida u Bosni, El-Kalem, Sarajevo, 2001. 6. Cigar, Norman, Genocid u Bosni, politika „etnickog ciscenja“, VKBI, Sarajevo, 1998.7. Charny, W., Israel, Encyclopedia of genocide volume I, volume II, Instute on the

Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, 1999.8. Cekic, Smail, Historija genocida nad Bosnjacima, Muzej genocida, Sarajevo, 1997. 9. Cekic, Smail, Agresija na Republiku Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Institut za istrazivanje zlocina

protiv covjecnosti i medunarodnog prava, Sarajevo, 2004. 10. Dedier, Vladimir, Miletic, Antun, Genocid nad muslimanima 1941-1945, Svjetlost,

Sarajevo, 1990.11. Doubt, Keith. Sociologija nakon Bosne, Buybook, Sarajevo, 2003.12. Dozic, Adib, Izvanbosanski programi zla u bosanskohercegovackom drustvu, Znakovi

vremena, nos. 22/23. 2004.13. Dozic, Adib, Elementi za novu subznanstvenu teoriju (sociologiju) genocida, Godisnjak

Filozofskog fakulteta Tuzla, no. 6/2005.14. Filipovic, Muhamed, Korijeni agresije, in: Genocid u Bosni i Hercegovini 1991-1995,

Sarajevo, 1997.15. Grupa autora, Genocid u Bosni i Hercegovini 1991-1995, Sarajevo, 1997.16. Grupa autora, Crna knjiga komunizma, Bosancica-print, Sarajevo, 1990.17. Halilbegovic, Nihad, Bosnjaci u jasenovackom logoru, VKBI, Sarajevo, 2006.18. Honig, J. W.-Boht, N., Srebrenica Hronika ratnog zločina, Ljiljan, Sarajevo, 1997. 19. Imamovic, Mustafa, Pregled istorije genocida nad Bosnjacima od kraja XVII stoljeca do

1945. godine, Pravni spektar, Sarajevo, 1999.20. Imamovic, M., Hrelja, K., Purivatra, A., Ekonomski genocid, MAG, Sarajevo, 1992.21. Korosic, Marijan, Jugoslovenska kriza, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1998.22. Kulic, Slavko, Strategija nasilja kao strategija razvoja, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1996.23. Letica Bartol, Letica Slaven, Postmoderna i genocid u Bosni, Naklada Jesinski i Turk,

Hrvatsko sociolosko drustvo, Zagreb, 1997. 24. Mirhovic, A., Salihovic, Z., Krzalic, A., Zrtve srebrenicke apokalipse, Tuzla, 2002. 25. Memic, Mustafa, Bosnjaci-Muslimani Sandzaka i Crne Gore, Muslimansko nacionalno

vijece Sandzaka, Sarajevo, 1996.26. Memic Mustafa, Bosnjaci (Muslimani) Crne Gore, ALMANAH, Podgorica, VKBI,

Sarajevo, 2003.27. PRESUDA Medunarodnog suda pravde: Bosna i Hercegovina protiv Srbije i Crne

Gore, 26. februar 2007. godine, Institut za istrazivanje zlocina protiv covjecnosti i medunarodnog prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu, Sarajevo, 2008.

28. Sells A., Michael, Iznevjereni most, ITD 7, Sarajevo, 2002.29. Soll. Drothe, Kristo-fasizam, Značenja, no. 16, Doboj, 1988.30. Softic, Sakib, Pravna priroda rata u Bosni i Hercegovini, VKBI, Sarajevo, 2000.31. Veselica, Marko, Temeljni izvori i akteri genocida na prostoru Hrvatske, Bosne i

Hercegovine i ex-Jugoslavije, u Genocid u Bosni i Hercegovini 1991-1995, Institut za

100istrazivanje zlocina protiv covjecnosti i medunarodnog prava, Sarajevo, 1997.

32. Zülch, Tilman, „Etnicko ciscenje“ genocid za „Veliku Srbiju“, VKBI, Sarajevo, 1996.33. Zgodic, Esad, Ideologija nacionalnog mesijanstva, VKBI, Sarajevo, 1999.34. Ziga, Jusuf, Bosanska krvava zbilja, VKBI, Sarajevo, 1997.35. Zunec, Ozren, Rat i drustvo, Ogledi iz sociologije vojske i rata, Naklada Jesenski i Turk,

Hrvatsko sociolosko drustvo, Zagreb, 1998.

APPENDICES

103

Enver IMAMOVIC, PhD, Faculty of Philosophy, Sarajevo

SREBRENICA AND ITS SURROUNDINGS DURING THE ROMAN PERIOD

This paper deals with Srebrenica and its surroundings during the Roman period. The excavations conducted towards the end of the last century, at the site of Gradina near Sase, not far from Srebrenica, recovered a Roman settlement for which it was established that it was a typical mining settlement. All buildings that a typical Roman town had (country-house, thermae, tribunal, forum et al.), a large number of inscriptions that were erected by town and mining officials, as well as a multitude of objects that miners used were found. The greater part of information about this settlement came from the material unearthed on the site of the town’s necropolis. The second largest Roman settlement was located in Skelani on the River Drina. The inscriptions that were found indicate that an important customs (beneficiary) station was located there. Numerous remains of the Roman culture in the entire area of the middle Drina Valley are indicative of the fact that this part of Bosnia was densely populated, the centre of which was Domavia, which was, as an important centre of silver exploitation, ranked as a colony.

The establishment of Roman administration

The conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Romans had far-reaching cultural and political effects. This led to the establishment of new social relations, transformation of economy and the beginning of a new way of life which definitely brought the local inhabitants out of the era of prehistory. How and when did the Romans occupy the middle Drina Valley region has not been quite established. It can be assumed that this happened in the second half of the 1st century B.C., or to be more exact, during Octavian’s wars that were waged in this part of the Balkan Peninsula in the 30s, when the entire Bosnia was conquered. The events related to the Great Illyrian Revolt against the Romans in 6 A.D. are indicative of this. Source materials say that the revolt was the result of high taxes and recruitment of their youth, which means that this part of Bosnia was formerly ruled by the Romans as well. There are no specific data about the number of the local indigenous population involved in the revolt. It can be assumed that they played a significant role given the fact that they inhabited the area that was strategically as important to the Romans as it

104was to the rebels. Reports written by Roman historians indicate that the crusades and the actions of the Roman army were rather tied to this area which had everything to do with local mines whose products were of equal interest to the concerned parties. From one of the inscriptions, found in Skelani, we learn that at that time Srebrenica and its surrounding area were inhabited by members of the Illyrian tribe of Dindari. We have a mentioning of their chief: princeps civitatis Dindariorum.292 This tribe is also mentioned by the Roman writer Pliny (III, 142), who says that it consisted of 33 decuriae (districts) which means that it belonged to the group of medium-sized Illyrian tribes. Given the fact that the inscription was found in Skelani it can be assumed that their tribal center was located in one of the neighboring citadels. This may be the reason why the Romans built one of their first settlements in the middle Drina Valley region in Skelani. After the conquest the Romans started with their usual measures to ensure their presence is constant and secure. Their first step was to devastate indigenous strongholds in the citadels, and then to start establishing new organization of administration and authority, and after that followed the preparation for the exploitation of the local mineral wealth. Thus the settlement in Skelani was established, which, from the very beginning, was characterized as a mining settlement. Due to its location, it was developing very fast so it, in a very short period of time, became an important settlement that had all the features of a typical Roman town. Romans also built settlements in other parts of the middle Drina Valley region. Among these, later on, the most important one was the one that was located on the site of the present-day village of Gradina near Sase. With the passage of time, this small mining village turned into a top notch town that surpassed the settlement in Skelani in every respect. Roman colonization of the middle Drina Valley region was not exclusively related to mining. Wherever there were proper conditions, estates (villae rusticae) with all the ancillary buildings were built. Forest resources, quarries and so on were also exploited. The abundance of this region attracted many foreigners so that, in a short period of time, the middle Drina Valley region became the most populated area in the Roman Bosnia and Herzegovina.293 This is evident in numerous traces of architecture, necropolis as well as isolated finds of various movable objects. The area of Srebrenica was at its peak during the 3rd and 4th centuries, a period most findings date back from.

292 K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XIX, Sarajevo, 1907, p. 446, no. 22, sl. 29.293 E. Pasalic, Anticka naselja i komunikacije u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, 1960, p. 74.

Picture 1. Inscription dedicated to god Mars (Lijesce – Skelani)

105Military Security

During their conquest, the Romans built several fortified strongholds (fortresses) that were in use during the entire time they were present in this area. In the beginning, the garrison was in charge of keeping an eye on the newly subjugated indigenous population, and ensuring the security of Roman settlers. That this cautiousness was imperative is evident in the events that ensued in 6 A.D., when the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina stood against the subjugator and everything that the Romans achieved in this part of the Balkan Peninsula was put into question. Having learnt the hard way,

they kept the military garrison here permanently, even when there was no danger of any rebellion. In peacetime, the army had a mission to ensure that the local mines, which produced large amounts of precious metal, were working without obstruction. Guard, or to be more precise smaller units, were deployed along all strategically important points, while the garrisons were deployed in Voljevica near Bratunac and Skelani. In Voljevica (site of Gradovi), the garrison was deployed on the banks of the River Drina, and it covered a tract of land 200 x 200 in diameter. Next to it there was a civil settlement that covered the area of 62.5 acres, according to Patsch 600 x 300 in diameter. In one of the inscriptions, found in the ruins of this place and two inscriptions from Skelani, a name of the unit that was deployed there is mentioned. It was legio XI, one of the best-known Roman units whose service is mainly linked to Illyricum, part of which was also the area of the present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina.294

In the area of Bratunac, there were in fact two camps. The remains of the second one were excavated in Gradina (Crkvina) next to Mihaljevici. It was built on the ruins of an Illyrian stronghold. Fragments of tombstones, coins, architectural remains et al. were found in the ruins.295

There was also a military unit deployed in Domavia (Gradina next to Sase). The camp was

located on a dominant point above the junction of the Majdan Creek and the River of Saska, on a linguiform plateau of the northern part of Gradina. Presence of army in

294 I. Bojanovski, Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provin-ciji Dalmaciji III; Prilog proucavanju antickih naselja i komunikacija u istocnoj Bosni, Godisnjak, XIX, Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja, book 17, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegov-ine, Sarajevo, 1981, p. 148; Arheoloski leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, volume 3, Sarajevo, 1988, p. 71; E. Imamovic, Tragovi rimskih vojnih jedinica na podrucju danasnje Bosne i Hercegovine, Prilozi, Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu, year XXIV, no. 25/26, s. 37-63, Sarajevo, 1990, p. 41-42.

295 I. Bojanovski, o.c., p. 148.

Picture 2. An Altar dedicated to god Jupiter (Skelani)

106Domavia is also confirmed by the graves that normally contain typical military objects such as parts of equipment, weapons etc.296

In addition to regular units, customs and police units were also deployed in this area. Those were the so-called consul beneficiaries who were responsible for administrative, customs and police affairs, as well as looking after state stores (horrea), roads etc. Their stations (stationes) were normally located on the intersection of roads, provincial crossings, transit places and large economic centers. Their presence was for the most part confirmed in Skelani and its immediate area. There were 11 inscriptions altogether which bear the names of beneficiaries and military units that they belonged to.297

In the middle Drina Valley region, the Romans, in addition to the two above mentioned settlements, had several smaller ones. Some of them were very close to one another, which indicates that the area was densely populated. Their ruins were found in Bratunac, Voljevica, Tegare, Konjevic Polje (Bratunac), Crkviste (Brezak), Karaula next to Sikirici, Koludra next to Zaluzje, Potputnjaca next to Fakovici, Ugosice next to Tegare, Zgunjevsko polje next to Srebrenica, Gradovi next to Voljevica, Mihaljevici next to Bratunac and Lijesce next to Skelani.298 Also quite common are the findings of isolated structures. The structures in question are outhouses, that is, rustic manors which were central buildings of agricultural estates. This type of ruins was found in Bare next to Zaluzje (Bratunac), Bratunac, Crkvi Ruzici next to Tegare, Podlijesce (Bratunac), Loznica (Bratunac), Rasce next to Srebrenica, Segna, Srebrna Luka, Zagraj, Zdrijelo next to Voljevica etc.299

Settlement in Skelani

The oldest Roman settlement, in the middle Drina Valley region, is the one found in Skelani. Based on the content of the inscriptions that were found, we learn that this was, for a long period of time, the administrative center of the entire region. Due to its favorable position it developed rather fast and in the second half of the 1st century A.D. (the Flavian era), it gained the status of a municipium (a town with autonomous authorities). This is attested by an inscription found in Rudo on the River Lim, which bears its full name: M(alvesiatium) muni(cipium) Fl(avium), that is, ‘Flavian town of Malvesiatium’, named after the dynasty of emperors during whose rule it gained the status of a municipium.300 It probably took place during Emperor Vespasian’s rule, in between 69 and 79.

296 On those findings: M. Baum – D. Srejovic, Novi rezultati ispitivanja rimske nekropole u Sasama, Clanci i grada IV, Tuzla, 1960, p. 28 ff.

297 E. Pasalic, o.c., p. 74; Arheoloski leksikon Bosne i Herzegovine, volume 3, pp. 67-82.298 Arheoloski leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, volume 3, pp. 67-82; I. Bojanovski, o.c., p. 147 ff.299 Ibidem.300 About this: D. Sergejevski, Spomenik, Srpska kraljevska akademija, 77, II r, Beograd, 1933, p. 16,

no. 19; I. Bojanovski, Municioium Malvesiatium s najnovijom epigrafskom potvrdom municipija iz Misajlovine (Rudo), Arheoloski radovi i rasprave VI, Jugoslovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb, 1968, pp. 241-258.

107

The inscriptions that mention the name of this town were found on different sides along the Drina, on both its banks: Skelani, Rudo, Misajlovina, Stari Brod, as well as on the right side of the Drina in Pozega and Uzice. Due to all these scattered findings it was unknown for a long time where, in fact, was the town by the name Malvesiatium located. Due to a larger number of inscriptions bearing its name that were found in the surrounding area of Pozega, some researchers were of the opinion that it was located in Visibaba next to Pozega. However, more recent research showed that it was located in Skelani, where, in fact, the greatest number of inscriptions mentioning this town was found along with other monuments that are indicative of the existence of a larger settlement.301

301 I. Bojanovski, Bosna i Hercegovina u anticko doba, Djela, book LXVI, Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja, book. 6, Sarajevo, 1988, p. 177 ff.

108 In most of the inscriptions the name of the town is mentioned in short form, often with only one initial letter or syllable: M…, Ma…, Mal…, while in the inscriptions found in Rudo, Misajlovina next to Rudo and Stari Brod, its full name is mentioned – Malvesiatium, that is, municipium Malvesiatium.302

Generally speaking, Skelani is the place where most Roman remains of all sorts, among which especially important are the inscriptions which provide us with plenty of information on the life and the development of this town, its inhabitants, civil services et al., were found. Several inscriptions bear the names of town officials, as well as the benefactions they had done for their town. A fair number of honorific bases among which several of them were dedicated to some of the emperors was found. In 158 the town erected a base with a statue in honor of the Emperor Antoninus Pius (CIL III, 142197). In 201, similar monument was erected for Emperor Septimus Severus (CIL III, 1421916), and several years later to Emperor Caracalla (CIL III, 12727). The town also erected honorific inscriptions with statues to their meritorious citizens. One of the inscriptions reads that the town council (ordo decurionum) granted a request made by their mayor Titus Flavius Rufinus to erect a honorific base with a statue to his father Titus Flavius Similis, former mayor of this town, in a public place. It was done on Emperor Marcus Aurelius’ birthday, on April 26, 169.303 In all cases

when a monument was erected by the town or someone else, provided it was granted by the Town Council, it is clearly stated in the text that it was done by the decision of the town council (decreto ordo decurionum), which was the highest body of town government. Much information about the settlement is also provided by tombstones. Their textual and artistic content provides information on the structure of the population, their material and social status, cultural and national affiliation etc. Especially important are the monuments erected by beneficiaries. Their inscriptions unfailingly state their name, age, military unit, rank et al. Thus we are informed that this was the place where units which were composed of the members of the legions I Adiutrix, leg. X Gemina, leg. XI Claudia pia fidelis, leg. V Macedonica

and leg. I Italica were stationed at.304

302 D. Sergejevski, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, LII, Sarajevo, 1940, p.20, no. 4; id., Spomenik, Srpska kraljevska akademija, LXXVI, II r, p. 77, Beograd, 1933, p. 16, no. 19; I. Bojanovski, o.c., p.177.

303 CIL, 1421910; K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XIX, Sarajevo, 1907, pp. 443-444.304 CIL III, 14218; 14219; 142194, 142195; Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XIX, 1907, p. 437; Spomenik,

Srpska kraljevska akademija, XCIII, II r. 72, Beograd, 1940, p. 148, no. 16; E. Imamovic, Tragovi rimskih vojnih jedinica na podrucju danasnje Bosne i Hercegovine, pp. 37-61.

Picture 3. Fragments of ornamental architecture from Skelani.

109Available data reveal that the process of tribal disintegration and Romanization

proceeded rather slowly. Local population started receiving Roman citizenship (civitet) during the Flavian era (end of the 1st century A.D.). The next round of granting of civil rights came during the rule of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his successors, and then, during the rule of Emperor Caracalla, in 212, all free citizens of the Empire, including those in the area of the present-day middle Drina Valley region, were granted civitet . Roman Skelani covered a large ager (territory). To the east it went even further than the River Drina thus encompassing the area of the present-day Pozega and Uzice, which is the reason why many inscriptions bearing the name of this town and its officials were found in these two places. To the south, it encompassed the area of the present-day Visegrad and Rudo, as well as a tract of the western Serbia around the Mountain Zlatibor. To the west it was bordering with the area of a Roman town in Rogatica (colonia Ris…). The respective areas of two municipalities were divided by the mountains Javor, Devetak and Sjemec.305

Earlier, the area of the present-day Srebrenica along with the settlement in Gradina (Domavia) also belonged to Skelani. When Domavia became an autonomous town municipality, it also encompassed a substantial part of the municipal territory of Skelani, that is Malvesatium. The remains of the Roman Skelani are located on the upper terrace along the River Drina and cover the area of one kilometer in length. Large amounts of building material, numerous monuments, petty findings et al. were found there. Thanks to the plane terrain, a symmetrical urban agglomeration was formed. The settlement had everything that a typical Roman town should have had. Among public buildings, the inscriptions mention town hall (curia), basilica, temple of the Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva), the court house (tribunal) et al. How monumental certain structures were can be seen from the remains of the pillars, fragments of ornamental architecture (cornices, lintels), mosaics et al.306

Domavia

Second largest Roman settlement, in the middle Drina Valley region, was located in the present-day village of Gradina Sase, nearby Srebrenica. We are well familiar with it thanks to extensive archeological research that began as early as 1883, and lasted for ten years.307 Among all these findings especially important are the inscriptions, primarily those which bear the name of this town and those which mention high government officials (procurators). The name of the town is usually mentioned in short form, such as: D…, Dom…, Domav…308 One of the inscriptions, however, bears the second (final) part of its name,

305 F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, Djela ANUBiH, book XXV, Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja, book 1, Sarajevo, 1969, p. 284, comment 35; I. Bojanovski, o.c., p. 180 ff.

306 C. Truhelka, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, III, Sarajevo, 1891, pp. 243-244; I. Bojanovski, o.c., p. 182.307 V. Radimsky, Rimski grad Domavia u Gradini kod Srebrenice u Bosni i tamosnji iskopi, Glasnik

Zemaljskog muzeja III, 1891, pp. 1-19; same author: Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, IV, 1892, pp. 1-24; Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, VI, 1894, pp. 1-47.

308 CIL III, 8359 = 12720; 8360 = 12721; 12728 and 12729.

110which reads: …/ avianorum (CIL III, 12732), which leads us to conclude that the full name of this Roman settlement was: Domavia. The settlement was located on a smaller plateau (Gornji grad), on the juncture of the River of Saska and the Majdan Creek. The plan had to be adjusted to the unsymmetrical configuration of land so, due to, a typical shape that planned towns had could not be achieved. Domavia was founded and continued to develop as a typical mining town. The excavations showed that everything in it was subjugated to mining, and due to a strong economical center developed there, and then it also became the administrative center. In the beginning, this was the seat of the emperor’s representative who, on behalf of the central treasury in Rome, supervised the work of the local silver mine (procurator argentariorum). Among them, by name, we only know two: Valerius Super (CIL III, 12734), and Aurelius Verecundus (CIL III, 12736). The inscriptions say that this place, later on, was also the seat of the emperor’s administrator for all silver mines that were located in the area of the province of Dalmatia (procurator argentariorum Delmaticarum), and then, from the beginning of the 3rd century, Domavia became the seat of an official who had under his supervision all the mines that were located in the area of the respective provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia, and those are the areas of the present-day Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Eastern Carniola, Styria, Austria, all the way to the Vienna Woods and areas of Podunavlje all the way to the River Tisa (inscription CIL III, 8361 = 12721): L. Domitius Eros procurator metallorum Pannonicorum et Delamticorum). Domavia gained this importance due to large amounts of silver that were produced by local mines, and it is understandable that the central authorities made a decision to have the seat of their representative here, under whose supervision was the exploitation of all mineral resources in such a wide area.

The exploitation of mineral resources

Mines, in the middle Drina Valley region, consisted of many pits, which were scattered along the neighboring hills and mountains. Due to the size and importance of the mines, as well as the abundance of silver that was excavated from the pits, the Romans named the whole area accordingly: Argentaria (Srebrenisce), according to a literary document that deals with the road systems in the province of Dalmatia (Tabula Peutingeriana, V3-VI2). Namely, the road, that led from Salona to the inner parts of the province, and ended right here in this mining district (Salona - Argentaraia). The name Argentaria is equivalent to the term Argentariae Dalamaticae, which was used in the signpost for all Dalmatian silver pits.309

The most important Roman mines, in this district, were located on the slopes of the mountains Kvarc, Lisac and Podlisac, and then on the hills above Gradina and Sase next to Majdan Creek, on Mutnjaca, Suhi Hrastik, Krivi Brijeg, Ajzlica, Guber,

309 CIL III, 12739 and 12740: About this inscription: I. Bojanovski, Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, Djela, book XLVII, Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja, book 2, ANUBiH, Sara-jevo, 1974, pp. 186 ff.

111Vitlovac, Olovina, Potocari, Zalisna etc. Remains of the pits can be found everywhere, and mining tools, mining lamps et al. can be found in them. Sometimes it is hard to determine whether the excavations date back from the Roman period or the mediaeval period. In some cases they are intertwined because both Roman and mediaeval miners often followed the same mining vein. However, some technical details make it possible to make a distinction.

Picture 4. Remains of the Roman statue (Gradina - Domavia)

Roman miners did not excavate all the minerals, especially those that contained Zink, which they did not use. Roman mines do not have diagonal excavations; their undercuttings always follow one direction with a 25 degrees inclination; their pits usually have wide holes, as it can be seen in the pit Kovacica, which is 3 meters high and 2.5 meters wide. They were of these dimensions so that they could fit the carts which were used to pull the ore out, which was not done in the Middle Ages. Mediaeval pits, among other things, can be recognized by irregular inclination and groove.310 Some of the researchers were wondering if, and to what extent, mining was developed in these areas before the Romans. They based their doubt on the fact that there were no traces that could be ascribed to Illyrians. Nevertheless, it should also be taken into consideration that the traces, if there were any, were destroyed by the works from the ensuing epochs, because, as a rule, those are the same sites where works were done by both the Roman and the mediaeval miners. It has been proven, however, that the Illyrians were skilled miners who left behind, in many places, numerous traces of excavation and ore processing, so it is, more than certain, that they too exploited rich local mines. Some of the researchers, on this issue, were decisive. Mehmed Ramovic, an engineer, studying the old mining techniques of this area, came to a conclusion that

310 E. Pasalic, O antickom rudarstvu u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sabrano djelo, Sarajevo, 1975, p. 264.

112all shallow excavations that can be found in the surrounding area of Srebrenica can be attributed to the Illyrians from the pre-Roman period.311 It has been proven that the Greek, several centuries before the arrival of the Romans in this area, had close trading relations with the Illyrian tribes from the area of the present-day Bosnia. They were especially interested in the mining products that local Illyrians abounded in, an in return, they offered vessels, weapons, jewelry et al. made of ceramics and metal. One of the more important trading routes was the valley of the River Drina. Based on the numismatic findings it can be inferred that the most regular merchants were those from Apollonia and Dyrrachium. Although there is an abundance of data about the Roman exploitation in this area, it is hard to tell when and under what circumstances it began. Almost all traces and monuments date back from the time when Domavia was a highly developed town. As Roman policy was to start obtaining almost immediately all available wealth from the newly conquered land, there is no reason not to believe that the same policy was applied here. All the more so since a precious metal was in question. Of course, it was not done as intensively as it was done later on. At that time, the focus of Roman interests were wealthy gold mines in central Bosnia, which produced up to 17 kilograms of pure gold per day.312

It was only after these mines were worked out that the Romans turned to silver mines located in the area of eastern Bosnia and that happened sometime towards the end of the 1st century A.D. From this time on, the number of Roman monuments here started growing, both in Skelani and in Domavia, which was, of course, in close connection to the increased exploitation of local mines. Seas of workers, experts and administrative staff along with highest ranking persons (emperor’s representatives) started pouring into Domavia. Metallurgical plants, workshops and everything else that a mining center should have were built. Large amounts of lead lumps, castings, mining tools, inscriptions mentioning mining profession et al. were found indicating that this was primarily a mining settlement. Grave goods also indicate that the inhabitants of Domavia were miners by profession. Numerous objects made of lead, lumps of ore, slags at al., which were used to mark the graves of those who were miners by profession, were found in tombs in Cadoriste (one of the town’s necropolises).313

The contents of the Domavian settlement

The place where Roman Domavia was located was examined from an archeological point of view long time ago. Due to, plan and contents of the town are well-known. It was adapted to the configuration of the land to the maximum and it was impossible for the orthogonal screen to be developed instead. However, regardless of

311 M. Ramovic, Obim rudarske djelatnosti u srebrenickom kraju tokom rimskog doba i srednjeg vijeka, Clanci i grada, IV, Tuzla, 1960, pp. 37-38.

312 About it: E. Imamovic, Eksploatacija zlata i srebra u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, Godisnjak, Drust-vo istoricara Bosne i Hercegovine, year XXI-XXVII, Sarajevo, 1976, p. 13.

313 M. Baum – D. Srejovic, Novi rezultati ispitivanja rimske nekropole u Sasama, p. 28 ff,

113that, it is a complete town. The excavations revealed the existence of all town buildings that are typical of a Roman town. The town hall (curia) was located on the square. It was oriented along an east-west axis, 38 meters long and 20 meters wide. It took up an area of 760 square meters. Judging by the remains of the massive walls, big ornamented door posts, roof made of lead tiles, remains of the central heating installations etc., it can be concluded that it was a monumental building. On the side facing the square the building had a long open lobby, and on the opposite side an apse that represented the central part of the southern front of the building. On both sides there was a smaller room. Next to the western wall there was a smaller wing with three rooms. Main hall (with an apse) was used for the sessions of the town council. In the apse, undoubtedly, was the statue of the emperor or some deity. Side rooms were used as officials’ offices, the archive, prison et al.

Picture 5. Ground-plan of the town hall (Gradina - Domavia)

In front of the manor, there were many altars. There was also a speaker’s platform (rostrum), honorific bases and other monuments. Several inscriptions dedicated to procurators and only a few emperors (Alexander Severus, empress Julia Mamea, Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus) were found in this area. One of the inscriptions reveals that, in Domavia, there was a town market-building (macellum). The text says that it was damaged during a fire, and then, in 220, it was reconstructed by an emperor’s mining representative Valerius Super, whose seat was in this town, at his own expense: (…macellum vignis conflagratum curante Valerio Supero viro egregio procuratore argentariarum res publica Domaviana ad pristinam faciam restituit).314 This shows not only that the afore-mentioned market-building existed earlier but also that it was often ravaged by a fire. The biggest building of the Roman Domavia were the thermae, that is, public bath complex (dimensions: 52,8 – 50,8 m). The thermae were located on the right bank

314 CIL III, 8363 = 12734.

114of the River of Saska, outside town centre. The building had 45 rooms, and it took up an area of over 2500 square meters. It was divided in two sections, male and female.315

The remains show that it was a monumental building. The walls of some of the rooms were painted, and the ceilings were ornamented with stucco work. Numerous specimens of ornamental architecture, mainly tiles with plastic decoration of plant motifs, shaped-up cornices, door posts et al. were excavated. Fragments of pilasters, pillars, tiles that were used to cover the floors and parts of thresholds were also found. The building was heated by the system of central heating (under the floor). The male section had two pools with warm water (caldarium), few smaller pools with cold water (frigidarium), then there was a room with heated air, which was used for sweating and body massage (tepidarium), a locker-room (apodyterium), a section for entertainment and relaxation, a restaurant et al. Local stone (quartz, trachyte, limestone traventine) with bricks as additional material used mainly for enclosing windows and doors, building sewers and stairs were used as building materials for this building. The floors of thermae had a foundation made of stone tiles that was covered by a layer of concrete mortar (estrih). Larger rooms were floored by thicker stone tiles. Fragments of mosaic were found in two rooms. White, black, gray, reddish, green and brown pebbles were used which means that certain rooms had floors with multicolored mosaics. Parts of water supply system (lead pipes) as well as part of sewage system were found. The water from the River of Saska, which was flowing right next to the building, was used for the technical needs of the bathroom. However, there was a separate water supply system that supplied the thermae with clean and quality water. Some traces indicate that a spring in Gajcin Dol, which was located on a hill above the thermae, was capped. Although there are several inscriptions mentioning the renovation of the thermae, it is unknown when it was built. In 220, it could not function properly due to deteriorated water supply system and a shortage of water supply. On his own expense, high mining official, Valerius Super, the same one that reconstructed, on his own expense, the town market-building, reconstructed it.316

After the reconstruction in 220, the citizens used the bath complex for another 54 years, when it was reconstructed again due to deterioration. And once again it was reconstructed by a benefactor. It was an emperor’s supervisor of the local mines – Aurelius Verecundus (… vir egregius procurator argentariorum balneum vetustate conlapsum ad pristinam faciem reformare curavit). This was also the last inscription that dates back from Domavia (274).317

During the excavation of the Roman Domavia, numerous objects were found. Among lead objects the most interesting one is a plate 40 mm in diameter, 5 mm thick 315 V. Radimsky, Prekopavanje u Domaviji kod Srebrenice godine 1891, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja,

IV, 1892, p. 3 ff; id., Izvjestaj o iskopavanjima u Domaviji kod Srebrenice u godinama 1892 i 1893, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, V, 1893, p. 6 ff.

316 CIL III, 12734; K. Patsch, Archäologisch-epigraphiscehen Seminars der Universitet Wien, XVI, pp. 132-133. No 1; I. Bojanovski, Anticko rudarstvo u unutrasnjosti provincije Dalmacije u svjetlu epigrafskih i numizmatickih izvora, Arheoloski radovi i rasprave, Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, VIII-IX, Zagreb, 1982, p. 102, br. 2.

317 CIL III, 12736; K. Patsch, o.c., pp. 132-133, No. 2; I. Bojanovski, o.c., p. 102, no. 6.

115and a weight of 50 g, with a hole in the middle. According to some, it was some sort of a weight. A typical weight, also made of lead, 1024 grams of weight, was also found. A certain amount of various coins was found. Most of the pieces belong to the period between the middle of the 1st to the middle of the 4th centuries,318 and that was the most intensive period in the life of this town. The oldest pieces belong to the series of senate’s money, and the latest ones to Emperor Constantine II’s era (337-340). Judging by this, it can be concluded that the thermae was used by the end of the 4th century. Considering the fact that the greater town area was never completely researched, the location of the industrial area of the town (metallurgical facilities, workshops et al.) remains unknown. Some of the findings indicate that it was located in the valley of the River Saska. During the digging of a foundation for a new dam, walls that were stretching over 100 m were discovered. These remains were also found upstream from the dam. This indicates that bigger building structures, probably smelters, were located in this area. Large amount of slag which was scattered all around speaks in favor of this. Concrete dam that was built there and large accumulation of lake silt covered these remains thus making further research of this land area impossible. Due to large amount of slag, which was also found in the town area, it can be assumed that the smelter in Domavia had a large capacity and thus it had to take up a large tract of land. Numerous heaps of slag, on the field, show that there were also smaller smelters located on the mining sites, or to be more precise next to the excavations themselves. Not even Radimsky, who was involved in the excavation of the Roman Domavia, was able to establish where the main smelter was. Two other researchers of this site (Pogatschnig and Rüker), based on the findings of lead castings and a significant amount of slag, believed that the remains of a large building located in the town itself belong to the smelter. Later on, however, it was established that those were the ruins of a town hall.319

The necropolises

An important group of monuments, which provide data for the studying of the Roman Domavia, are the cemeteries (necropolises). Up to now, three cemeteries along with a large number of isolated graves, some of which were sarcophaguses, were found. The oldest graves belong to the necropolis that was located on Veliki Plato (town’s eastern necropolis). Graves were also found in Cadoriste, along the road that leads to Ajzlica and Srebrenica (the western necropolis). The third necropolis was located on Karaula (region of Rudine) and in Kostanjevac (the northern necropolis). Isolated graves were also discovered along the River of Voljevac and along the road that leads to the Drina.

318 V. Radimsky, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, IV, 1892, p. 23 ff; E. Pasalic, Anticka naselja i komuni-kacije u Bosni i Hercegovini, o.c., p. 73.

319 E. Pasalic, O antickom rudarstvu u Bosni i Hercegovini, p. 62.

116

Picture 6. Roman vessels for everyday use

(the necropolis on Karaula – Gradina Domavia)

Almost all of the corpses were burnt, and they belong to the period between the second half of the 1st to the beginning of the 3rd centuries A.D., when the ritual of incineration was practiced. The necropolis with skeleton graves, which belongs to the period between the 3rd to 4th centuries, has not been found yet. It is assumed that it was located along the Gradina-Bjelovac road. Several skeleton graves in lead and stone sarcophaguses, were unearthed along this area, and based on this it is assumed that it was a necropolis with the skeletal remains of the dead (buried).320 However, it remains a mystery where the Italics and other immigrants that came here during the 1st and 2nd

centuries were buried.The analysis of the graves and grave goods can give a rather clear idea on

the economical, social and cultural circumstances in the Roman Domavia. The oldest graves on Veliki Plato are devoid of any signs of Roman presence. All of the grave goods belong to local production and are modest. This shows that, in the 1st century A.D., Domavia was still an unknown mining settlement, or to be more precise, a village (vicus), with a predominant Illyrian ethnical element. It was towards the end of the 1st century that they started putting foreign items, mainly military items (parts of military equipment, weapons et al). Everywhere, Roman army was a predecessor of mass colonization, which included merchants, officials, entrepreneurs, work force et al.

General impression of the finding is that, in the period of the early Empire, Domavia still played a modest part, and by that, assumed a modest position in the Roman economy. After that, due to a sudden development, the local village, in a short time, became a strong economical and administrative center.

One of the key elements that affected the development of Domavia were also tumultuous political events in the Empire, which, from the middle of the 2nd century,

320 K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XXII, 1910, pp. 192-195; I. Bojanovski, Problem istocne nekropole (s inhumacijom) u Domaviji, Clanci i grada, XIV, Tuzla, 1982, pp. 143-145.

117demanded a greater economical involvement of the inhabitants, which in turn led to the beginning of intensive work on the exploitation of the local silver mines. The state needed large amounts of gold and silver in order to wage wars with the barbarians, and thus the mines located in the middle Drina Valley region became increasingly important.

The changes in Domavia that were the result of this can best be seen in grave goods. From the 3rd century on there are only skeleton graves with grave goods that clearly point to the existence of a new cultural and ethnical class, or to be more precise the immigrants. While the old graves usually had grave goods such as ceramic bowls, mining lamps made of clay, iron wedges, objects made of lead, pieces of slag et al., which all points to an indigenous cultural component, the situation now is completely different.

In the town’s necropolises that date back from the 3rd century, when Domavia became a strong cultural and economical center, we find typical Roman graves with abundant grave goods that give a clear perspective of the structure and standard of the population of Domavia at that time. During this period of time, wealthier town classes were buried in the necropolis on Karaula. In those graves there are no modest grave goods typical of mining which belonged to the indigenous population and lower classes in general, but rather expensive jewelry, imported vessels et al. Those were the graves of wealthy merchants, high town officials, mining experts etc. This class was made of different national elements. A lead plate with a Greek inscription (Tabula defixionum) was found in one of the graves, which shows that the deceased was of Greek origin.321

Members of the wealthier class of society sometimes buried their deceased in expensive sarcophaguses. Most of these were found along the road that leads towards the Drina. In one of the lead sarcophaguses a young girl was buried. Her skeleton still had jewelry on. Around her neck she had a 6 grams chain, a pair of earrings in her ears and a 4,3 grams ring on her finger, all made of 20 carats gold. The sarcophagus was the shape of a narrow coffin, 27 centimeter deep, 1, 60 meters long and 36 centimeters wide. It was made of six cast plates 8 mm thick. It was reinforced by two iron rods, which held the cover, from above. The sides were ornamented by relief circles.322

Picture 7. Necklaces made of glass paste (necropolis on Karaula, Domavia)

321 D. Srejovic, Ispitivanje rimske nekropole u Sasama 1961-1962, Clanci i grada, VI, Tuzla, 1965, p. 26.322 K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XII, 1910, p. 194.

118 Road network

As economical and administrative center, Domavia was well connected by roads with all the neighboring places, and through them with other towns in the Empire. The Romans, as early as the beginning of the 1st century, built several regional roads that connected the capital of the province, Salona, with the inland. Among them, especially important was the so called regional mining road which connected Salona with the most important mines in the inland of the province. It went through Busko Blato and Duvno, all the way to the gold mines that were located around Gornji Vakuf, Travnik and Fojnica in the central Bosnia. From there it went over the Mountain Romanija, and towards the silver region that was located in the central part of the Drina Valley region (Argentaria). This road is also recorded in the traveling guide – Itinerary (Tabula Peutengeriana) dating back from the 4th century, that gives some basic information about it. Its final destination was not marked as a settlement but rather a district, and that is the afore-mentioned Argentaria. The purpose of this was probably to emphasize the mining character of this road, which does not mean that its final station did not end in a populated place, in Skelani or in Domavia. Domavia was connected by a different road, which led downstream the River Drina, with the capital of the province Pannonia – Sirmium (Ad Drinum - Sirmium). Besides these regional roads, there was also a local network that connected all bigger and smaller settlements of this mining district with the town center in Domavia. Among these local roads, the most used section was the one connecting Domavia with Skelani. Many paths and tracks from the neighboring excavations led to metallurgical center, in Domavia, whose local smelters were the places where the excavated ore was transported to. The most common traces of roads dating back from the Roman period are the milestones, supporting masonry and the remains of bridges. Especially important are the milestones that bear the inscriptions which specify the mileage (mille passuum), and the names of their builders. One such milestone was found near Voljevica, and two more with no title in Petricko polje near Tegari and near Gradina respectively. The last one was dedicated to emperors Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus. The remains of the Roman cobbled road stretching 7,5 kilometers in length were discovered in Bjelovac. A part of the road that was paved with big stone cobbles was excavated in Petricko polje. Such remains were also found on the road connecting Skelani and Durdevac. Well preserved traces can also be seen on the part of the road that connected Domavia with Bjelovac.323

Religious monuments

Highly important for the study of the Roman history, of this region, are also cult monuments. In most cases the monuments in question are cult-and-votive monuments which speak indirectly about the religious life of the inhabitants of this region, as well

323 E. Pasalic, o.c., p. 70; I. Bojanovski, Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (III), p. 177 ff.

119as how honored was a local or a foreign god. There are total 13 registered deities, among which 7 belong to the Roman pantheon, 3 to the eastern, 2 to the Greek and 1 to local cult.

The analysis of the monumental material showed that, for the most part, the cults related to the Roman pantheon were represented. So far 22 monuments which confirm the existence of ten Roman cults were found. Among these, 13 are dedicated to the autonomous cult of god Jupiter (8 monuments from Skelani, 2 from Gradina, that is, Domavia, and one in Crvica and Voljevica respectively). A monument dedicated to the cult community of Jupiter-Juno comes from Sase, near Gradina, and two dedicated to the community of Jupiter-Mars come from Skelani, and one that is dedicated to the cult community of Jupiter-Genius comes from Gradina. Along with the gods of triad, other Roman deities were also honored. A monument testifying the worship of the god of war – Mars, was found in Lijesce, near Skelani. One of the monuments from Skelani testifies the cult of the god of wine, Liber, and worshipers of goddess Diana could also be found in Domavia and Skelani, where respective monuments dedicated to her cult were found. In Domavia there were also worshipers of god Genius and goddess Pomona.

There were also devotees of Greek deities in this area. An inscription dedicated to the gods of health, Asclepius and Hygieia, was found in Skelani. The same applies to eastern cults. A monument testifying the presence of the devotees of the cult of god Sabazius was found in Sase. Worshiping of god Attis was testified by 3 monuments (one from Crkvica, Sikirici and Bratunac respectively). In all three cases the monuments in question are stone monuments bearing a chiseled figure of this god. There was also no shortage of believers who worshiped the Iranian god Mitra, which is attested by an inscription from Skelani.324

The followers of the afore-mentioned cults were mainly foreigners, while the local population worshiped local gods. Two monuments that mention favorite Illyrian deity – god Silvanus, were preserved. One of the findings comes from Skelani and the other one comes from Sikirici. Given the fact that the Illyrians worshiped the unofficial gods, a limited number of monuments were preserved, as was the case with Roman deities. In addition, the Illyrians performed their religious rituals in open spaces (groves, wells, caves at al.), and they did not build solid shrines whose remains could be preserved

324 About these monuments: E. Imamovic, Anticki kultni i votivni spomenici na podrucju Bosne i Her-cegovine, Sarajevo, 1977, p. 312 ff.

Picture 8. Bronze statue of the winged Genius (Gradina - Domavia)

120to the present-day. They made the figures of their gods from friable material (wood), and this explains why there is not that much evidence about the local religion as there is about the Roman, which, in addition, was the official religion, that is state religion. The greatest number of the cult monuments was represented by inscriptions. Believers used them to prey to this or that god whom they wanted to pay their gratitude for the help at various occasions in life, be that for the successful healing, well ending of a trip, happy return from a war and the like. In addition to the category of monuments, there are also few findings which are purely cultish. They were placed on an altar in a temple, or some home chapel, or they were used as an instrument for performing the cult. One such is the afore-mentioned finding from Gradina which is associated with the cult of the god Sabazius. It is the shape of a human hand; it is cast of bronze, and it has relief representation of figures of various animals (snake, turtle, lizard and frog), and has a cone on top of the thumb. During the religious ritual the hand was put on a pole and shown to believers. A small bronze statue representing the winged Genius was found in Gradina.

Population

Through cult-and-votive and epigraphic monuments we learn that this region was populated by people of different nationalities. This especially applies to Domavia. Along with the indigenous people, who were, of course, the most numerous, the inscriptions also mention Italics, Greek and Orientals. They mostly lived in town areas while the local people lived in villages. It is unknown what nationality were the members of the large work force that worked in mines and workshops, because the material available from the monuments does not reveal that. It has be assumed that it too consisted of many nationalities that were brought here as slaves from all areas of the Empire. In this way, in this area, a sort of cosmopolitism, which marked this area in a unique way, was created. Epigraphic material along with other material leads us to conclude that a substantial number of foreigners started arriving to this region in the middle of the 2nd century, when the local mines started working in full capacity. It required a large work force that consisted of hosts of experts, supervisors and officials. New army and police contingents also arrived in order to secure the settlement, mines and communication.

Picture 9. Bronze hand of god Sabazius (Gradina - Domavia)

121 Having in mind that the exploitation of precious metal was in question, the supervising and security services were given full attention. It is for this reason that there are many inscriptions mentioning precisely military and customs persons, as well as highly ranked mining officials. It is the inscriptions that provide us with the information about the national structure, social status and the profession of the local population. When the indigenous population is in question, everything points to the conclusion that the process of tribal stratification and Romanization went slowly, and as a result the indigenous population was deprived of citizenship for a long time. Only few individuals were lucky enough to acquire civitet. The oldest continuous population (peregrina) are the Favivii, which means that they acquired their civitet during the rule of the Flavian dynasty (69-96 A.D.). Those were, by rule, retired soldiers with a rank who, along with the citizenship decree, also received new gentilicium (last name). Acceptance into the citizenship intensified with Emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (middle of the 2nd century). The persons who received civitet up to that moment can be recognized by the gentilicim of those emperors (Aelius or Aurelius), which they added to their former name. The most numerous group of the naturalized indigenous population are Aurelii who received their civitet under the rule of Emperor Caracalla, in 212. Monuments give us the chance to nicely follow the intensity of the arrival of foreigners to this region. From the 3rd century on, there are more and more inscriptions bearing gentilitia of Italic origin, such as: Barbii, Caminii, Painii, Catilinii, Tessii and Salvii.325 The inscriptions also testify the presence of the Greek. A tombstone with a Greek inscription was excavated in Biljace, near Domavia. A piece of a pot bearing the seal in Greek (Glycon) was found in the ruins of the thermae in Domavia. It was probably either made in a local workshop whose owner was a Greek, or by a potter of that nationality who was working there.326 Few inscriptions bear typically Greek male and female names: Attica, Pryphena, Eutychia, Hermes etc. This shows that, among many inhabitants here, there was also a substantial number of Greeks, who lived and worked as experts, merchants, soldiers, free persons or slaves.327

There are no reliable data based on which total population in this area could be estimated. Those data are not available even for bigger town settlements, first of all for Domavia and the one located in Skelani, and then for the smaller ones in Sase, Tegare, Bratunac, Crkviste (Brezak), Karaula (Sikirici), Koludare (Zaluzje), Potpunjaca (Fakovici) et al. Substantial number of population lived on estates, or to be more precise rustic manors. Along with the owner and the supervisor and their respective families, there were also slaves. Of course, there were also numerous settlements where the indigenous population lived, which are attested by a large number of fortresses where traces of life from the Roman period were discovered. When the town settlements are in question, first of all the one in Domavia, which we are more familiar with than with others due to the excavations that were conducted, we can only guess the number of population. It was a town with several thousand inhabitants, which is indicated by a several purely technical types of data.

325 CIL III, 12722, 12743, 12744; I. Bojanovski, Bosna i Hercegovina u anticko doba, p. 201.326 K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, VII (1895), p. 584.327 K. Patsch, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und Herzegowina, V, Wien-Sarajevo, 1897, pp. 238-239; E. Pasalic, Anticka naselja i komunikacije u Bosni i Hercegovini, p. 96.

122First of all, the capacity of the public bath complex was 45 rooms with numerous pools. That it had a larger population is also attested by the fact that there were several town necropolises, then the existence of all town institutions and services that only larger town settlements with larger population had. In addition to that it also had a larger work force, which was scattered around local mines, smelters, workshops etc. Domavia, as an economical and administrative center, had a status of a larger town. We are well informed about this from the epigraphic monuments. Archeological material, acquired from the Domavian necropolises, shows that, up until the beginning of the 2nd century, Domavia was an insignificant settlement, or to be more precise, just a mining village. Governing and administrative center, at that time, was in Skelani, which at that time had the status of a municipium and was more advanced than Domavia in every respect. When, in the middle of the 2nd century, a more intensified excavation of silver in the Domavian mines began, the settlement in Skelani relinquished its place in favor of Domavia, which, from that moment, began developing, and thus gained the status of a colony. This was the administrative center of the entire region, as well as the seat of the emperor’s procurator for all mines that were located in the area of the province of Dalmatia. At last, Domavia became the seat of the administrator of all mines located in the area of the respective provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia.

The organization of town government in Domavia

Municipal community of Domavia is mentioned for the first time in the inscription dating back to 218, during Emperor Macrinus’ rule, with the label res publica Domavianorum.328 In the inscription dating back to 230, from the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus’ rule, Domavia is mentioned as a municipium (ordo municipium Domavianorum),329 while in the inscription dating back from the time of the Emperor Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), it is mentioned as a colony (ordo decurionum coloniae metalli Domaviani).330

This is the status that was given only to the deserving and important town centers by the decision of the central authorities in Rome. Domavia gained this status due to its abundant mines that in grave political circumstances, in the middle of the 2nd century, were of the highest importance to the Empire. The town had all the services that a higher ranking settlement should have had. The head of the town was the town council (ordo decurionum), as the highest governing body. It made all the decisions and issued decrees on all governing matters related to the life of the town population. Those documents (inscriptions) usually bear the sign decreto decurionum, that is, ‘by the decision of the town council’ (this and that shall be done, or this and that is granted, it will be given and the like).331

328 CIL III; 8363 = 12734; K. Patsch, Arechaeologisch-epigraphische Mitteilung aus Oesterreich-Un-garn, XVI, Wien, 1893, pp. 139-140, No. 1 (218).

329 CIL III, 8359 = 12720; K. Patsch, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, XVI (1914), p. 181, sl. 63; CIL III, 8360 = 12732; K. Patsch, AEM. XVI (1893), pp. 129-130, no. 9.

330 CIL III, 12728, 12729; S. Dusanic, Novi Antinoev natpis iz Socanice i metalla municipii Dardano-rum, Ziva antika, god. XXI. Sv. 1, Skopje, 1971, p. 250, comment. 57.

331 CIL III, 12728, 12729.

123 Town officials were almost always chosen from among the upper classes of society, who were also the wealthiest persons. They gave a share of their wealth to the town in a way that, from time to time, they infused the town treasury with money. On their own expense, they built and reconstructed public buildings, installations, made the town more beautiful by putting up statues and building fountains and the like. The most respected citizens of Domavia were the customs officials, or to be more precise emperor’s representatives for the local silver mines (procuratores argentariorum), who were, on behalf of the central treasury in Rome, in charge of their work. We are familiar with the names of only a few of these higher officials: Valerius Super (218), Julius Tacitianus (230), Aurelius Verekundus (274) etc. Silver mines in the middle Drina Valley region were, in earlier times, organized under one common name, Argentariae delmaticae, which included all the mines in the province of Dalmatia. However, there were also argentaria of Pannonia. They included all the mines located in the area of the province of Pannonia. These two areas were united during the rule of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (160-181), and from that period on in the inscriptions they are mentioned as united mines, or to be more precise as mining area, which had one supervisor.

First known supervisor of these united mines was Ti. Claudius Proculus Cornelianus who served as a supervisor in the period 161-169.332 In the period 180-192, this duty was performed by Ti. Claudius Xenophon.333 We do not know where their seat was because the inscriptions, which they are mentioned in, were found in Africa and Asia. There is every reason to assume that they were seated in Domavia, given the fact that later on this was the seat of supervisors of all the mines that were located in the area of these two provinces. One of them was Lucius Eros (3rd century), whose honorific base was erected by a certain L. Aurelius Rusticus. The text reads that the afore-mentioned Eros was procurator metallorum Pannonicorum et Dalmaticorum, that is ‘supervisor of Pannonian and Dalmatian mines’.334 Procurator’s inscriptions show that the relations between the municipal and the mining administration in Domavia overlapped in many respects. Some of these

332 CIL III, Année épigraphique, 1956, p. 127, (Lambaesis).333 CIL III, 7127, (Ephesus).334 CIL III, 8361 = 12721; K. Patsch, AEM. XVI (1893), pp. 92-93.

Picture 10. Honorific inscription dedicated to Emperor Volusianus from the 3rd century A.D., where Domavia is

mentioned as a colony (Gradina - Domavia)

124inscriptions were erected by the decision of the town council and municipal funds, and were under the care of the procurators (CL III, 8359 and 8360 = 12720), while, the procurators, as representatives of the emperors’ domain, in turn, by their care and funds built and reconstructed public buildings, as was the case with the town residence, water supply system and the thermae.

These unique circumstances that brought upon this interpenetration of interests between the municipium and the emperor’s domain, in this case the mine, undoubtedly, also imposed a unique type of relation between town officials and mining officials, and it had to be legally defined, although, due to a lack of documents, we are not quite familiar with the type of this relation. As the state domain of strategic importance was in question, we have to believe that, in this case, the prerogatives of the Domavian municipium could not be in opposition of the mining administrative organization, nor

the other way around. As it was mentioned above, that in this case, the municipium was conditioned by the mine, in other words, the settlement, as well as its municipium, was built here for the purposes of the mine and it served the mine, because it was a purely mining settlement, both in organizational and demographic structure. This is also confirmed by the official name of Domavia, which indicates that it was a mining colony, that is col(onia) m(etalli) D(omaviani), where this m(etalli) clearly emphasizes the mining element.

The organization of mine operation

The important question here is: who owned local mines? Precious metals represented strategic merchandise for the Roman state and due to the exploitation and trade in this metal, at all times, was strictly under strict state control. Anyhow, this was also the case with the mines in Srebrenica. Same applied to the gold mines located in the region of central Bosnia. From the inscription materials we learn that they were administered by special emperor’s officials, as one epitaph from Salona shows: Thaumasto commentariensi aurariarum Delmatarum.335 Silver mines were put under more strict state control during the rule of Emperor Trajan (104-110), when the state, due to big wars of conquest, needed enormous funds. 335 CIL III, 1997; I. Bojanovski, Anticko rudarstvo u unutrasnjosti provincije Dalmacije u svjetlu epi-

grafskih i numizmatickih izvora, p. 91.

Picture 11. Objects for everyday use (fragment of a bone needle, bronze mirror with a handle, a fragment of a

bronze instrument, lid for a cosmetic box, findings from the necropolis in Karaula - Domavia)

125This is also confirmed by the existence of the so called mining money that was labeled Metalli Ulpiani Delamatici.336 Although, they do not specify what metalli (mines) are in question, it is plausible to assume that this refers to the silver mines in eastern Bosnia as well. It indicates that the exploitation of these mines, at all times, was in the hands of the state. The organization of their exploitation allowed private sector to take part as well. Some mines were leased to private sector. The aim of this was to make the exploitation as efficient as it can be and under a higher degree of control. Although there is no evidence of the existence of this type of organization in the area of Srebrenica, it can be assumed that the same applied to Srebrenica since this was the case with the nearby Kosovian (Socanica’s) mines. In the inscriptions from that area coloni (petty lessees) are literally mentioned. They had their own special organization (ordo colonorum), which, on the contrary, had nothing in common with the town administration (ordo decurionum). It was more of a guild-like association, without any authority prerogatives.337

Picture 12. Roman vessels of a better workmanship (necropolis on Karaula - Domavia)

336 S. Dusanic, Heterokliticko metalli u natpisima rudnickog novca, Ziva antika, god. XXI, sv. 2, Skopje, 1971, p. 536 ff.

337 E. Cerskov, Municipium DD, Pristina – Beograd, 1970, p. 64 ff; S. Dusanic, Novi Antinoev natpis iz Socanice i matalli municipii Dardanorum, p. 247.

126 Given the fact that the mines, in the area of Srebrenica, were maximally active during the entire antique period, the question is how much silver could have been excavated during this period of time? This question was more closely examined by the mining experts, among whom the opinion of Meho Ramovic, an engineer, deserves special attention. He, on the basis of certain analyses, came to the conclusion that during the antique period a total of 80 tons of silver and 40 tons of lead could have been dug out. Roughly speaking, this same amount of metal was excavated in the Middle Ages as well.338

However, this piece of information has to be taken with a qualified acceptance because it is impossible to determine the true state of the matters. Namely, the exploitation was done in the same area for thousands of years, starting from prehistoric times to the Middle Ages, and quite often in the same pits. Due to, in most cases it is impossible to determine what belongs to the Roman period and what belongs to the period of the Middle Ages. Not even the findings of mining tools can be of much help since their shape and use changed very little over the centuries. The digging technique was more or less the same. There are only a few traces for which one can confidently claim that they belong to the exploitation from the Roman period. Roman miners were more solid in every respect; their pits were bigger and more symmetrical, the construction was more solid etc. Slave-holding Rome was, with its perfect organization, better technical equipment, more advanced technology and enormous work force (slaves), beyond the possibilities offered in the Middle Ages. One has to keep in mind the fact that the state interests of mighty Rome, which, in its own production, exploited these mines, were in question. Thus, it can justly be said that most traces of silver exploitation, in this area, belong to the Roman period. Given the fact that the owner of these mines was the state, extracted silver went to state treasury. Accordingly, the mines were protected to the maximum. Earlier, the silver from this area was sent over Salona to Rome, where it mostly served the needs of the central mint. When, in the middle of the 2nd century, defense wars started in the lower Danube and when there was a treat of the invasion of the barbarians, Domavian silver was, from that time on, sent to the centers closer to the threatened border, and those were Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) and Siscia (Sisak), where strong military garrisons, mints and weapon workshops were located, and all of these were engaged for the purposes of amassed border troops. Sirmium, in this respect, was more important for Domavia than Siscia. The existence of close ties between Domavia as a production center and Sirmium as a consumer one is proven in epigraphic form as well. One of the inscriptions from the 3rd century, a part of which was found in Lutvin Han and the other part in Tegare, mentions a dignitary who was a procurator of the Dalmatian argentaria that is mines from the area of the present-day Srebrenica, and at the same time he was a town official in Sirmium.339

338 M.A. Ramovic, Stari rudnici, Sarajevo, 1981, p. 97.339 CIL III, 12739; D. Sergejevski, GZM. XLVI (1934), pp. 14-15; GZM (LII (1940), pp. 23-26.

127

Picture 13. A pot with a handle (necropolis on Karaula - Domavia)

The same way that there was an organized service that was in charge of a safe functioning of a mine, there was also the service that was in charge of a safe transport of the dug silver to its destination. The services in charge of this were the beneficiaries, for whom it was epigraphically proven that they were, in most cases, stationed in Skelani. The road that connected Domavia to Sirmium (through the Drina valley), as well as the one that connected Domavia to Salona (over the Mountain Romanija), were maximally secured. Traffic police, which on certain points along the entire marked route, had its posts, was in charge of the safety of the precious cargo, entourage, post and official travelers. There were also inns for the travelers. On all the critical points (hill and mountain passes, river crossings et al.), there were fortresses with military and police crew. There was a separate service in charge of technical maintenance of the roads so as the traffic could proceed smoothly in all seasons. Work force, in mines, had a multinational structure. At first, it was mostly made of the locals. They were pursued mining even before the arrival of Romans; they were excellent experts so the Romans used their experience to the maximum. When, from the middle of the 2nd century, the functioning of mines was intensified, work force was imported from all parts of the Empire. Along with workers, there also came officials, mining experts, supervising staff et al., who were mainly recruited among Italics, Greeks and Orientals, while the national structure of the mass work force remained unknown, although it is quite clear that they were slaves. Among them there were also criminals (ad metalla), who were by a court ruling due to an offence, as convicts, brought for forced-labor to local mines. This category of workers was at all times ready for rebellion and disobedience, and for this reason next to every mine there was a military, or police guard. The remains of a fortification in Domavia were discovered under the north slopes of Grad.

128 Roman Srebrenica

When the history of this region is in question, one of the unavoidable questions is: was there, in the Roman period, in the area of the present-day town of Srebrenica, any type of settlement? Some random findings from the town’s land area and immediate surrounding (water pipes, money, jewelry et al.),340 support this assumption. In the immediate surrounding of the town (Guber), there are remains of the Roman pits, which indicates that there was at least a mining village located there. The fact that not far from the present-day town there is a mineral spring (Crni Guber), whose healing properties could not have possibly been unknown to Roman miners, should not be disregarded. One of the latest discoveries shows that present-day Srebrenica really lies on Roman foundations. In the southern part of the settlement (Petrica), on a piece of land called Atifova basca, the property of the Kadic family, remains of large dimensions which contain remains of the central heating construction, were found. It is a typical Roman architecture, and the Roman construction is also indicated by the material the building was built from (special Roman brick), then the massiveness and large

dimensions of the building. Whether these remains belong to a military object, a country house or some public (town) building cannot precisely be said until further research has been made. For now, it can be said that the findings in question are Roman, which is clear evidence that the present-day Srebrenica is located on Roman remains. On these foundations, undoubtedly, Middle Ages Srebrenica, whose main orientation, throughout the entire period of the Middle Ages, was also mining, was developed. An important factor in determining the intensity of life in the middle Drina Valley region is the coin find. Many coins, both isolated and group finds of all types and dating back from different periods, were found. The oldest pieces come from Greece (4th century B.C.) that came here through trade. This money mostly comes from the towns of Apollonia and Dyrrahio.341 By far the most common finds are the pieces that date back from the period between the 1st to the 4th centuries.

340 Most of these findings can be seen in the collection of the Secondary School Center in Srebrenica, as well as the private collection of a local citizen Jusuf Hasic.

341 K. Patsch, Novci Apollonije i Dyrrachija, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja VIII (1896), pp. 415-422.

Picture 14. Earthen lamps with imprinted factory seals (necropolis on Karaula - Domavia)

129 Many pieces were found in the ruins of the Domavian town, mostly in the thermae. In Sikirici, a hoard containing several hundred pieces has been excavated. All the pieces belong to the period of the 3st century A.D., and they were produced in a mint in Viminacium (Serbia). Similar findings come from Bjelovac. The middle Drina Valley region, with numerous multinational population, represented a fertile ground for the prevalence of different religious beliefs, and among them Christianity as well. The most valuable findings of this sort come from Skelani. Two early Christian basilicas were excavated there, as well as the adjoining graveyards. An early Christian church was also excavated in Vigora near Srebrenica.342 An inscription that comes from Bratunac from the period either of the end of the 3st or the beginning of the 4th century, which mentions a mother and a son, who are believed, due to specific (Christian) expressions in the text, to be the followers of this religion. All this indicates that Christianity came to this region very early on, towards the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century. Although no Christian monuments were found in Domavia it does not mean that there were no Christian followers in this town. Given the fact that followers of the early Christianity were mostly recruited from the working classes, and that Domavia was a mining town with a large number of workers that belonged to different nationalities, it can be assumed that there was an early Christian community (municipality) here as well. In favor of this assumption is also the fact that this religion was widely accepted in the neighboring settlement of Skelani where two early Christian basilicas existed, and that Domavia was a larger and more respectable settlement than Skelani. The existence of two basilicas, in one place only, shows that the early Christianity in this region had many followers.343

The very last news about Roman Domavia dates back to 274. And that is the afore-mentioned inscription of the mining official Aurelius Verecundus, who, on his own expense, reconstructed the dilapidated thermae. After that there are no more municipal inscriptions which, in turn, does not mean that by the end of the 3rd century the life here simply stopped, or to be more precise that the mining stopped. The finds of coins and other monuments testify that life here was present by the end of the 4th century, and probably later on.

When and under what circumstances the mines in Srebrenica definitely stopped functioning and when all signs of life based on Roman foundations disappeared, it is unknown. It was probably closely related to circumstances in general that ensued in the end of the 4th and throughout the 5th centuries, in larger area of the Balkan Peninsula, and later on in the entire Empire. General feeling of insecurity that developed under the threat of a barbarian invasion had to have something to do with the functioning of the mines in the middle Drina Valley region, and by that life of the inhabitants of this area in general. When, in the second half of the 4th century, the invasions of the borderline peoples to the area of the present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina became common, their first targets were wealthy economical centers, among which were also those in the middle Drina Valley region.

342 I. Bojanovski, Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provin-ciji Dalmaciji, III, p. 151.

343 C. Truhelka, Starokrscanska arheologija, Zagreb, 1910, p; D. Basler, Arhitektura kasnoantickog doba u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, 1972, pp. 113-115.

130

Picture 15. Ground-plan of the early Christian basilica (I) in Skelani

This general feeling of insecurity continued throughout the period of the 5th

and 6th centuries, and then an enormous destructive wave of Avars and Slavic people came, which resulted in the annihilation of the antique towns in the area of the present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these insurgencies both the local settlements and their inhabitants were destroyed. In this way, for all times, the life based on antique foundations perished. This also meant the end of the antique era, as well as, later on in peaceful conditions, the beginning of a new life. Alongside the surviving locals, there is no doubt about it, there were also some Slavic immigrants who blended into the environment. These changes marked the beginning of the period of the Middle Ages during which wealthy local mines were exploited to the maximum in the same way they were exploited during the Roman period. Nevertheless, the exploitation in the Middle Ages differed in every respect from the one from the previous era. A new mining center was now created in Srebrenica whereas the Roman Domavia, which is only about 10 kilometers away, was completely forgotten. Srebrenica, in the Middle Ages, was what Domavia was in ancient times.

131Summary

The Romans showed the special interest for Middle Podrinje because of rich resources of silver and lead. According with this territory became very soon an urban area. There were two city centers. One of them was in Gradina near Sase not far from Srebrenica and another in Skelani on Drina. Area in Gradina was completely excavated. The resources showed that was the typical mining city with all contents which were functional of work of the present, coal mine. Some notes show that there was exploited silver in large quantity. It was reason why Domavija became a center of high mining officials who controlled the work of mine; it means production of silver.

In next period Domavija became a center of managers of all state’s mine located in area of present Austria – Albania and Rumania.

Epigraph’s documents showed that Romans established the first area, which was in Skelani. During the first century it was the administrative center of the whole region.

During the exploitation of mine around present Srebrenica, development of Domavija was started, too. In the meantime Domavija became one of the biggest Roman cities in territory of present Bosnia and Herzegovina. Excavation in Domavija found out all contents, which characterize one city: townhall, court, municipal pool, square and others.

Large amount of slaghills in the town and its surroundings show that mining exploitation was very big.

The most documents were found in excavation of cemeteries.There were four of them, although individual graves often in sarcophagus were

discovered along the streets, which have taken out of the town.Inscriptions show there were different nationalities in Domavija. It’s confirmed

presence of Greeks, Orientalists and Italics who worked and lived in this town. Most of the population were natives. About importance of Roman Domavija tells the fact in her development, passed all levels of municipality from republic to colony.

High mining officials built and repaired common buildings and did many other things for the town on their own expenses.

For better function of mine and for needs of city centers in Domavija and Skelani, very early was made tiny road network.

The main road was between Domavia and Salon and also Sirmium. There were many local roads. The excavations showed that the whole region of Middle Podrinje was narrowly populated.

For mining protection and general safety were concerned by army and police.Remains of cantonments are discovered in Voljevica and Skelani; but remains

of sentry – boxes are discovered at several places.

Domavija as the other districts were destroyed during settlements in 5th and 6th century.

Avars and Slavs destroyed remains.So nobody had lived there anymore.344

344 Enver IMAMOVIĆ, Srebrenica i okolica u rimsko doba, Članci i građa za kulturnu historiju istočne Bosne, knjiga 17., Tuzla 2002., 7-36

133

Tatomir VUKANOVIC

SREBRENICA IN THE MIDDLE AGES

There is not a single town in Bosnia that has such a long and important tradition as does Srebrenica. Its name clearly points to its rich content and main characteristics. Its abundant supply of mineral resources made it one of the most important centers of the Roman Province Dalmatia; these resources enabled it to become one of the most appreciated places of the mediaeval Bosnian state, a place over which many bloody wars were waged. Due to these resources the whole country was named Bosnia Argentina in the mediaeval period. A significant number of sources and other historical documents from the mediaeval period about this important and significant old town have been saved. As far as I know, so far only V. Corovic partially discussed Srebrenica in scientific terms: Srebrenica za vlade despota Stefana (1413-1427) (Srebrenica during Despot Stefan’s rule (1413-1427)).345

It is at this very place that I will try to present a complete monograph of Srebrenica in the Middle Ages, considering all the questions pertaining to its mediaeval history, all problems relating to ethnical history, as well as all sociological and economical implications. The following discussion should be seen as a contribution to our scientific study of the formation and development of South Slavic urban settlements in the Middle Ages.

I

In the immediate surrounding of Srebrenica there are numerous traces of intensive mining during the Roman period. Here, in Gradina, there was an entire town, Domavia or Domavium, which was studied in detail after a long period of excavation that took place in between 1883 and 1893. At first it was but a vicus – a village for a long time; then, during the respective rule of Emperor Macrinus (217-218) and Emperor Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) it was a municipium, and after that, due to its extreme importance, it was pronounced a colony. ‘Procurator metallorum Pannoniorum et

345 Prilozi za knjizevnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor II (1922), pp. 61-77; in this piece of work the author pays more attention to mechanics than the content of the subject matter. In addition, about Srebrenica in the Middle Ages see Lj u b. K o v a c e v i c: Kad je Stefan Lazarevic zavladao Srebrenicom. Godisnjica Nikole Cupica III (1879), pp. 420-423. An entire account about Srebrenica and the fights over it, but nonetheless a superficial and incorrect one, was given by M. S t a n o j e v i c and M. G a j i c, Despot Stefan Lazarevic, Beograd, 1894, pp. 162-165. A documented article about Srebrnik near Srebrenica was written by M. D i n i c, Glas Srpske akademije nauka CLXI, Beograd, 1934, pp. 185-196.

134Dalmatiorum’ had its residence there, which tells us that this town was the centre of Roman mining administration from the Adriatic Sea to the Danube.346

This Roman town consisted of an upper and a lower part. The Upper part was located on a hill above the village, its present-day name is still Grad, and it was surrounded by a strong wall which served as a shield for the colony. The Lower part developed in the valley and it covered a rather wide area. Its town hall, curia, with its huge Jupiter’s altar, had a long lobby leading to a spacious hall with an apse. There was a number of imperial statues ranging from Marcus Aurelius to Trebonianus Gallus as well as a few statues of more important procurators. The town also had its public bath complex with forty-five compartments, which was lavishly adorned with painted decorations and mosaic flooring. In 220, Valerius Super, a mine procurator, had waterworks completed, and it was probably around this time that it was built. Half a century later, in 274, the entire bath complex was renovated. In addition, there were also other important buildings, such as the market, macellum, and one other building with a fragment of an inscription of Emperor Caracalla (211-217), but neither could be fully examined. That this, indeed was a wealthy town is best seen in a lead coffin of a girl containing her gold jewelry and rings of significant value. The second important Roman site in the area of Srebrenica is Skelani. Immensely rich, this place of unknown name had a basilica adorned with statues. It was the seat of the garrison of the legion ‘I adjutrix, V Macedonica, X gemina and XI Claudia pia fidelis’, probably because there was a need to protect the crossing of the Drina near the important mine. In this place an epitaph of a man, that reads princeps Dinda(riourum), was found, which indicates that a tribe of Dindari lived somewhere in this area. Judging by its non-Roman name Domavia, this place existed long before the Romans, and it was perhaps, even then, used by this tribe. The main population of this area, of Illyrian descent, later on mixed with the Roman colonists. It is interesting, though, that there were also some remains from the Greek region as well. An earthen vessel was found in Gradina, which was made there, with, in Bosnia, a rare Greek inscription. And besides this, there are also several names of Greek origin: Truphena, Julia, Attica, Caminia Entychia, Hermes.347 It is perfectly natural to assume that trade was flourishing in this mining settlement. First of all, it was the seat of consulate beneficiaries. However, there is also other immediate evidence that trade was flourishing. An old Roman road, leading through the valley of the River Drina, was built almost immediately; a number of other objects of different origin, especially coins, was found. In the surroundings of Srebrenica, an inscription of a decurion from Sirmium, who was procuring ore from Srebrenica for the mints of that town, was found.348

346 W. R a d i m s k y, Generalbericht über die bisherigen Ausgrabungen der römischen Stadt Domavia in Gradina bei Srebrenica, Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, I, 1893, pp. 218-253; IV, 1896, 202-242; L. P o g a t s c h n i g, Alter Bergbau in Bosnien. Wiss. Mitt. II (1894), 152-157;

C. P a t s c h, Domavia, Paulys-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie V (1905) pp 1294-1296; C. T r u h e l k a, Die römische Drinathalstrasse im Bezirke Srebrenica. Wiss. Mitt., I, 308-314.

347 C. P a t s c h, Historische Wanderung im Karst und an der Adria. I, Die Herzegowina einst und jetzt, Wien, 1922.

348 C. P a t s c h, Zur Geschichte von Sirmium, Bulicev Zbornik, Zagreb-Split, 1924, pp. 229-232.

135 Piles of bronze coins came from Viminacium’s mint, which, undoubtedly, had ties to this place the entire time. Money is the medium that enables us to have an insight into the history of the colony. The oldest pieces date back from the second half of the first century after Christ; and the latest pieces date back from the middle of the fourth century. Most pieces are from the third century, when the mine and the whole area were in full bloom. Money of Constantine II, that is, the money that dates back from the period in between 337-340, was the last one found there, The main Domavian building, its town hall, was ruined in a fire. This was easily established since there were traces of burning all over the building. It is highly likely, since the ruins were not reconstructed, which would have probably been done if the accident was random and limited only to that one building, that it was caused by a disaster which had struck the whole town. The fact that the money of Constantine II was the last one, found in circulation here, shows that the disaster which struck the town happened after his fall. When exactly this happened, cannot, of course, be said with certainty because that could have happened on more than one occasion;349 but it is clear that it could not have happened much later. Wealthy mining town attracted pillaging squads, which appeared in the Balkans in the fourth century, and probably fell victim to their plundering.350 This is the ancient area of Srebrenica, long known as Argentaria. In recent times, V. Corovic made assumptions about the existence of trade connections between Srebrenica and Tuzla in ancient times. In particular, he mentioned the exchange of goods – salt for other types of minerals, pointing out how that would be ‘a nice example of mutual trade, which is not only possible but also, judging by their relations and connections with other much distant areas, highly likely.’351 However, at this point this is nothing more than an assumption because there is no historical evidence.

349 Compare J. J u n g, PhD, Roemer und Romanen in den Donauländern, Innsbruck, 1887, pp. 178-180; C. Patsch, Nahodaji novaca, Glasnik Zem. muz., XIV (1902), pp. 419-420.

350 T o m a s c h e k, Argentaria. PWRE, III, Stuttgart 1895, 705; on the Tabula Peutingeriana, which dates back to the middle of the fourth century after Christ, Srebrenica was marked as Argentaria. – I l i j a S i n d i k, PhD, Stare karte jugoslovenskih zemalja, Belgrade, 1931. Atlas geografskog drustva sb. 6, tabl. I (according to K. Miller). – About Bosnia in the ancient period compare C. P a t s c h, Zbirke rimskih i grčkih starina u bos.-herc. Zemaljskom muzeju. Glasnik Zem. Muz., XXVI (1914), pp. 67-95; F. S i s i c, Rimska uprava u Dalmaciji i Panoniji. Narodna starina I, 1922, pp.17-22; H. C o n s, La Province romaine de Dalmatie, Paris, 1882, p.184 ff; G. N o v a k, Topografija i etnografija rimske provincije Dalmacije, Zagreb, 1918; E. O b e r h u m m e r, Zur historischen Geographie von Küstenland, Dalmatien und der Herzegowina, Wien and Leipzig, 1911.; A.

P a t r i g n a n i, Riccordi dalmato-illirizi nela monetazione imp. Romana, Archivio storico per la Dalmazia XIV, 1932, pp. 335-357; C. P a t s c h, Arheološko-epigrafska istraživanja povijesti rimske provincije Dalmacije, Glasnik Zem. Muz. XIX (1907), pp. 431-470; papers by D. S e r g e j e v s k i, Glasnik Zem. muz. XLVIII, (1936), pp. 3-14; XLI (1929), pp. 95-109; XXXIX (1927), pp. 255-260; Spome-nik Srpske Akad. nauka LXXXVIII (1938), pp. 95-127; LXXVII (1934), pp. 1-28; V l a d i m i r C o r o v i c, Historija Bosne I, Posebna izdanja Srpske Akad. nauka knjiga CXXIX, Beograd, 1940, pp.63-93. M i h o v i l M a n d i c, PhD, Bosna i Hercegovina u rimsko doba, Povijest Bosne i Her-cegovine, knjiga I, Sarajevo, 1942, pp. 121-137.

351 V. C o r o v i c, op.cit, p. 38

136II

In the source material dating back from the mediaeval period Srebrenica is first mentioned in 1376.352 A significant number of Ragusan merchants, who were there even then, were ore lessees. The Republic itself had, at that time, its consul here, Andrija Mencetic, who came from a known noble family. Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica came into conflict with some of their fellow-countrymen, who, as lessees of Bosnian customs, imposed new taxes, and thus made the export of lead, other than their own, more difficult from Bosnia.353 It is evident, therefore, that at that time, Srebrenica was a developed merchant town as well as that the exploitation of its resources began earlier and enabled this place to restore its importance. There were important trade-wise reasons why the Ragusans had their entire court in Srebrenica. Its purpose was to settle disputes speedily, on the spot, between the litigants from Ragusa, so they would not have to go to court all the way in Ragusa. Besides the consul, this court, in 1376, was comprised of two other members, Ilija Sarak and Matko Nikola Zvezdic, who were his ‘consultants’ (consilieri) or ‘judges’ (indesi).354 This Ragusan court existed since very early on. As early as 1332, in an attempt to regulate mutual relations and reaffirm legal practices ‘ки ѥ* (* due to the technical difficulties to use the sign ׀ɛ, sign ѥ was used instead, Editor’s Note) прһко кио’, Ban Stjepan II confirmed the right of the people of Ragusa, to settle their disputes, even on Bosnian territory, completely autonomously: ‘Ако има ςвадоу Доубρовчанинь зь дроугомь ςвоѥмь оу Боςнɛ, гоςподниһ бань да нɛ има пɛчалн’. The lawsuits filed by Ragusans against Bosnians were settled before the Ban’s Court, while those filed by Bosnians against Ragusans had to go before the court in Ragusa, that is, either in Ragusa or one of these local courts such as the court in Srebrenica.355

In 1379, there were some unresolved issues between the Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica and King Tvrtko I. Due to a lack of physical evidence today, unfortunately, we cannot establish what king’s emissaries, in May that year, reported to Ragusa about the business affairs in the colony of Srebrenica; nor can we establish why the merchants from Srebrenica begged the Republic to intervene with the king on their behalf.

352 C. J i r e c e k, Die Handelstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien, Prag, 1879, pp. 50-51. In a Charter found in I. Delcic, Monumenta Ragusina V, Zagrabiae, 1879, p. 377, it is mentioned that it was issued ‘sub castro Serebernice’. In the Slovenian translation of the same Charter, F. M i k l o s i c, Monumenta serbica, Viennae, 1858, p. 107, this place is referred to as Srebrnik (пoдь Cpьбpьникомь). That town was Srebrnik near Srebrenica.

353 J. T a d i c, Pisma i uputstva dubrovacke republike, Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjizevnost srpskog naroda, III paragraph, book IV, Srpska akademija nauka, Beograd, 1935, pp. 320-333. The same year, on the 16th September, Bogdan Priboevic-Okrugli and his cousins and friends received threats of be-ing punished by the authorities if they continued attacking the consul from Dubrovnik and his judges in Srebrenica, blaming them for Bogdan’s brother, Bogavce, incarceration in Dubrovnik. Bogdan responded in a letter that the charges against his brother were false because he has always ‘accepted his consul’ – Op.cit., p. 339 – Mon. Rag., IV, pp. 150-151.

354 Mon. Rag., IV, pp. 151-152.355 St. N o v a k o v i c, Zakonski spomenici srpskih drzava srednjeg vijeka, Beograd, 1912, pp. 164-165.

In 1376, on September 26, Bogdan Priboevic-Okrugli, sent a reply from Srebrenica to the authorities in Dubrovnik informing them that he could not appear before the court regarding the issue of a house, because he was not completely free from the Bosnian king nor was he given back everything that was taken away from him. – J. T a d i c, op. cit., pp. 370-371.

137 A letter by King Dabisa dated March 6, 1392, reveals that Drago Gucetic and Novak Macedol, together with their respective brothers, had took lease of ‘Сρɛбрьницγ и поноρһ’ and that Dragoje had properly kept to his part of the agreement. The agreement between the King and the lessees was that they both had to pay 425 liters of pure silver a year to the King. Dragoje deducted from his payments and the king accepted everything the lessee gave him instead of silver such as entourage, pearls, setups etc., ‘ωдьбивьши за пγςтγ Сρɛбрһницγ’. It cannot be said with certainty what this means. It is hard to imagine that the town would have been abandoned due to some danger. Towns like Srebrenica were especially taken care of. The best evidence of this is the very defense system of the town walls. Maybe this refers to deserted parts of Srebrenica like those parts where the search for ore amounted to nothing! It is interesting that the other partner in the lease agreement, Novak Mecedol, did not pay his part, so he secretly left Srebrenica. King Dabisa, of course, asked Gucetic, who was some sort of a guarantee, to settle the debt.356 Other than that, the relations between the Republic of Ragusa and Srebrenica became more cordial. Large number of citizens of Srebrenica, by entering into trade relations with Ragusans, developed an interest for that town and some of them probably moved there. Some of the citizens of Srebrenica became citizens of Ragusa and that, it is common knowledge, was considered a privilege on the part of the Republic. Such citizens were Novak Vukojevic, who became a citizen of Ragusa on January 21, 1391 and Hrelja Hrvatovic, who was given that honor on June 10 the same year.357 All we were able to learn from the two letters is that the Republic made their wish come true.358 After that, on June 16, 1397, Zivko Ivanovic Ligatica was made a citizen ‘with honors and rights’, and he swore that he would fulfill his duties and be obedient to the authorities of Ragusa (‘iuravit civilitatem et obedientiam dominationi Ragusii’359). The same was done by Dobroslav Miljkovic on July 9, 1398.360

The riots, that ensued in Bosnia after 1398, partly due to Turkish invasion and partly due to internal conflicts and fights, were not favorable for the strengthening of these relations. In addition, the war that broke out between the Republic of Ragusa and the Bosnian king, in between 1403-1404, also affected the colonies of the Republic of Ragusa and the merchants in Bosnia and thus, to a great deal, among other things, hampered the economical development of Srebrenica. When the peace negotiations started in spring 1404, the Ragusan authorities sent their envoys, Marin Kobuzic and Nikola Pucic, with special instructions to seek for the renewal of the old benefits for all main Bosnian markets and first of all for Visoko and Srebrenica. These two places, according to the Ragusan authorities, have suffered enough and it was high time for them to be settled for the future (‘che da mo avanti non ne sia fatto algun aggravamento’361)

356 Mon. Rag., IV, p. 215, p. 246. In 1380, on September 17, a Ragusan, Bogdan Priboevic-Okrugli, re-ceived a court order in Srebrenica to share the house with his brother Bogavac. – J. T a d i c, op. cit., pp. 448-449.

357 M. P u c i c, Spomenici srpski II, Biograd, 1862, pp. 33-36; K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski, Spo-menik Srpske akademije nauka XI, 1892, pp.39-40.

358 Mon. Rag., I, pp. 150-151.359 Op. cit., pp. 151-152.360 S t. N o v a k o v i c, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 164-165.361 N. J o r g a, Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des croisades, II, Paris, 1899, p.99. Dubrovacki

drzavni arhiv; Ref. May XXXI, p. 91; Dipl. Rag., pp. 155-156; Pucic, Comment IV-VII.

138The same year, Hungarian troops occupied Srebrenica,362 but it appears that this was done mostly with the purpose of preventing Hungarian opponents from taking over the place. They specifically asked the new King Tvrtko II to revoke all the orders given by his predecessor, King Ostoja, regarding mining towns in his state, which were especially harmful to Ragusan merchants.363 After that, Duke Hrvoje occupied Srebrenica along with neighboring towns in 1409, thus defeating King Ostoja.364 However, there was no real peace in Bosnia even after that. King Sigismund wanted to regain his wavering prestige there at any cost so he conducted a few expeditions to Bosnia. In 1408, King Tvrtko II was taken into captivity. In 1410 Sigismund365 attacked again and in 1411 new conflicts ensued. These fights against the Hungarians were accompanied by severe internal conflicts because the country was divided between the two local kings, Tvrtko II and Ostoja, and because, in those confusing times, everybody looked after their own interests. The fights were raging everywhere and all means were used. During that period, naturally, all mercantile operations were stopped, and merchants, in some parts, were going through a very difficult period. During these fights the Hungarian army, as early as May 1410, occupied most towns in between the respective Rivers Usora and Drina, including the town Susjed ‘cum mercato Srebrenia.’366 The town was under Hungarian rule for a longer period of time. Back on April 5, 1411, the Ragusans complained to King Sigismund about a certain Daniel, a customs officer in Srebrenica, who interfered with them, and they begged the king to allow them to trade freely with miners and workers in local pits.367 It was not long after this plea, only forty-five days later, that heavy fighting took place in Srebrenica itself. The local population rose against Hungarian authorities. During these fights, Hungarians demolished, burnt down and pillaged Srebrenica in a purely demonic manner and the Republic of Ragusa, saddened by these events, complained to King Sigismund. ‘We hope’ they wrote with bitterness, ‘that Your Highness would find a cure’ – Ragusan merchants had formed an alliance with Hungarians to protect, together with the Hungarian troops, this place from Bosnians. Two Ragusans were killed, some of them were captured by Bosnians and taken into slavery, and a greater part of the town itself was pillaged. The damage, as a matter of course, was immense. Hungarians managed, thanks to immediate help, to save the town. Their castellan was mentioned there as early as the month of May 1411.368 In order to take care of its captured citizens the Republic asked its friend, mighty Duke Sandalj Hranic, for help. It appears that he was able to save them from any further troubles. The concerned Republic wrote to the duke then: ‘Молимо гдѣ морɛ гоςподһςтко ти доςɛκи а тγн ωбρѣтγ

362 M. P u c i c, op. cit. I, p. 208. 363 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 102-103; Pucic, Comment IX.364 M i h. J. D i n i c, Vesti Eberharda Vendekea o Bosni, Jugoslavenski istoriski casopis I (1935), p. 362.

Forty years later, the takeover of Srebrenica by a Herzog of Split was still remembered in Ragusa – Glas CLIX, p. 186.

365 King Sigismund was in Srebrenica on October 14. – Fejer, Cod. Dipl. X, 5, pp. 45-46.366 G e l c i c h – T h a l l ó c z y, Diplomatarium relationum reipulicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungariae,

Budapest, 1887, p. 195; compare L u c o, Memorie, p. 391, Bosnia does not have other ‘mercatum Srebernia’ than Srebrnica.

367 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 129.368 Dipl. Reg., pp. 200-201; V. C o r o v i c, Historija Bosne p. 406; M. P u c i c, op. cit., p.102 and com-

ment XIII.

139тρһговци нашн или иманьѥ дγбρовачко бγди ти мило׀ть ςьблюςти н нɛдати иѣоѥ маншинɛ γчинитн’.369

After the fight over Srebrenica was over, King Sigismund decided to hand this wealthy town over to Despot Stefan Lazarevic. The last riot showed him that it was hard to defend this place with Hungarian troops so far away from the Hungarian land. He did not want to turn this town over to Bosnians because he did not trust them and because he did not want them to increase their financial strength which would happen if the town was in their possession. Thus, he decided to relinquish the place to a despot who was both his loyal friend and servant for many years before. On one hand, it should have been a visible reward for the despot’s support of Hungarians during all recent dangerous crises and favors he had done for him in Bosnia during recent fights. On the other hand, by doing this he ensured that Bosnia and Serbia never reach peace, which was to Hungarian advantage. By occupying Srebrenica, Serbia entered Bosnian territory. At the beginning of November 1412, King Sigismund himself visited the area because the Ragusans sent their emissaries to the area of the River Drina and the region belonging to Zlatonosovic family who were rulers in the valley of the River Spreca and the surrounding area of Zvornik.370 The town was probably turned over to Serbian despot on this occasion.371

369 M. P u c i c, II, p. 102. N. Jorga, op. cit., p. 128. It can be seen from my comment that I talk about the Srebrenica affair in a different tone than F. S i s i c, Duke Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic, Zagreb, 1902, p. 223.

370 Dipl. Rag., pp. 210-211371 Regarding the issue of when Srebrenica was turned over to despot Stefan Lazarevic, there are numer-

ous scientific opinions. Therefore, first it was thought that Srebrenica came under Serbian despot’s rule in 1411. – C. J i r e c e k, Die Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke in Serbien und Bosnien, p. 39, p. 50; V. K l a i c, Povjest Bosne, Zagreb, 1882, p. 142.; id., Povjest Hrvata II, 2, Zagreb, 1902, p. 49; S t. S t a n o j e v i c, Die Biographie, Stefan Lazarevic’s von Konstatin Philosophen als Geschich-tquelle. Archiv für slavische Philologie, XVIII, 1896, p. 448; J. R a d o n i c, Der Grossvojvode von Bosnien Sandalj Hranic – Kosaca. Archiv f. sl. Phil. XIX, 1897, p. 413; F. S i s i c, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic, Zagreb, 1902, p. 223. Judging by these, according to the account of K. Jireceka it appears that the town came under Serbian rule much later, because the Ragusan transcript of that time mentions that the town was in despot’s possession for the first time on October 2, 1413. – Geschichte der Serben, Gotha, 1918, p. 148. Lj. Kovacevic believes that it happened in 1412, and that Srebrenica was given to Stefan during the meeting in Buda that took place in between May 22 and June 23 the same year, when, according to C. the P h i l o s o p h e r: ‘миогам оть оугρһɛкынγһ странһ бһзςтһ даρоваиа׀а ɛмоу, грады оуко твρһдыɛ и вһςн и проча׀а, южɛ вѣдɛть вһςа окρьςтьнам царһςтвнιа’. – V. J a g i c, Konstatin Filozof i njegov zivot Stefana Lazarevica despota srpskog., Glasnik Srpskog ucenog drustva XLII, Belgrade, 1875, p. 311. LJ. Kovacevic thinks that despot Ste-fan took over Srebrenica in the second half of 1412 ‘in a peaceful manner, because if there had been a war, his biographer Constantine would have mentioned it the same way he mentioned his other two wars in Bosnia.’ – Lj. K o v a c e v i c, op. cit., pp. 420-423. This opinion of Lj. Kovacevic is literally shared by V. Corovic, discussing Srebrenica during the rule of despot Stefan (1413-1427). – Op. cit., pp. 61-62; and later on, V. C o r o v i c, PhD, Historija Bosne I, Posebna izdanja Srpske akademije nauka knjiga CXXIX, Beograd, 1940, p. 408. On the other hand, J. Radonic, is of the opinion that despot Stefan got Srebrenica immediately after he made a deal with Sigismund in Buda, in July 1411. According to him this concession could be understood in such a way that king Sigismund, by giving, among other things, Srebrenica to the despot, thought that he would have more use if these mines were excavated by miners from Serbia, who were well-known in Western Europe for their ability. – J o v a n R a d o v i c, Sporazum u Tati 1426 i srpsko-ugarski odnosi od XIII-XVI veka, Glas Srpske akademije nauka, CLXXXVII (1941), p. 158, comment 10, 160, comment 13.

140III

The history of Srebrenica under the rule of a Serbian Despot Stefan Lazarevic is both intriguing and interesting. Main records about this period can be found in documents that talk about the relations between Despot Stefan and the Republic of Ragusa. These documents, among other things, talk about the Ragusans in Srebrenica. First of all, Despot Stefan gave special benefits to Ragusan merchants on his land. In the charter dated December 2, 1405, in addition to benefits, despot also gave them a promise: ‘да нѣ намɛта Доубρовчаномь оу тρһговɛΧһ гоςподһςтва мн.’372 And now, impoverished by difficult wars, despot had to break that promise and impose taxes on Ragusan merchants in order to increase revenues of the royal treasury. The Ragusans started protesting under this pretext but at the same time they were also protesting against Srebrenica which came under Serbian rule only recently. During this protest the Ragusans referred to earlier benefits given to them by Bosnian and Hungarian rulers, so, on March 5, 1414, in regard to this, they wrote to Despot Stefan, and on March 6, they informed their merchants in Srebrenica about the matter in question.373 Ragusan pleas and protests fell on deaf ears and things became so complicated that they reached a critical point. Certain Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica did not want to comply with despot’s orders, so he had to take harsh measures against them. In other words, despot’s officers in Srebrenica captured all those Ragusan merchants who did not pay their taxes, confined them and threw them into prison, and confiscated their property. Due to this, a significant number of Ragusan merchants left Srebrenica and ran back home. Surprised by the actions of despot’s officers, the Republic of Ragusa sent Ivan Gundulic on December 21 the same year, to complain to the despot and remind Despot Stefan of the benefits and rights that Ragusans were given earlier.374 In January, 1415, the second embassy was sent which went to congratulate on the wedding and bring gifts to despot’s nephew Durad Brankovic as well as pay a visit to Despot Stefan. After they had congratulated Stefan on this joyous event in the family, the embassy was to discuss the harshness on the part of despot’s officers towards their merchants. At last, the embassy had to warn the despot that such actions could lead to the discontinuation of trade relations between the Republic of Ragusa and Serbia. In addition, the embassy also had to complain about the violent seizing of Ragusan property for the needs of despot’s court, and ask for retribution and that it never be repeated again. The embassy was given instructions to discuss the very same matter with Durad Brankovic and his mother Mara.375

As we were able to learn from the two letters by the Republic of Ragusa dated March 16, 1415, the issue of confiscation of property of Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica for the needs of the state treasury of Despot Stefan is only known to a certain degree. The letters mention certain Zivko Ligatic who enraged the despot and was confined and all his possessions and furniture confiscated. Referring to the benefits given earlier, confirmed both by his parents and himself, under which they were guaranteed free trade, the Ragusans now, in one of the letters, begged that one half of that property be given

372 S t. N o v a k o v i c, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 218-221.373 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p.144.374 Op. cit., p. 147.375 Op. cit., pp. 148-149.

141to Stepko Pavlovic, Zivko’s partner, who had legal rights to it. In the second letter they speak on behalf of Zivko Ligatic himself, whom the despot was angry with for his ‘нɛγмѣнньɪє’ or because some evil man slandered him to the despot. Despot’s reply to the envoys was that he would give back Stepko Pavlovic his part but only under the condition he managed to prove that he was the rightful owner. The Republic of Ragusa, in a letter dated March 15 of the same year, attested that it had a record in its books of a contract under which Zivko Ligatic and Stepko Pavlovic split all their property in Srebrenica376 in half. This letter and attest did not help in any way nor did they influence the despot to resolve the matter in favor of the Republic of Ragusa. Therefore, the Republic of Ragusa, the same year on November 30, again wrote a letter addressed to Despot Stefan and his metropolitan, Isidor, imploring them to return the seized property of their subject, and in addition asked them to lend a helping hand to some of the other Ragusans in Srebrenica.377 As earlier, Despot Stefan did not want to grant the Ragusans’ plea. Due to this, on February 22, 1416, the Republic of Ragusa sent Despot Stefan another emissary, Nikola Gucetic, whose mission was to advocate for Stepko Pavlovic’s interests. There were also other complaints made by Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica that Gucetic had to address and speak on their behalf. Namely, for no reason the Duke of Srebrenica took 40 liters of silver from Fran Sorkocevic, and he still has not recouped them despite the fact that Despot Stefan promised that they would be recouped. But then again, Despot Stefan was in some personal debt to Marin Gucetic, which was not settled at the time. The emissary was also given a letter addressed to despot’s metropolitan, Isidor, imploring him to intervene with Despot Stefan378 on their behalf the best he could. As it appears, this emissary too failed in his mission.379 In the fall of the same year, Ragusan merchants living in the area of the Despot Stefan’s state filed new complaints. The Republic of Ragusa was offended by these actions, so it banned all trade with the despotate immediately after the afore-mentioned events in 1416. The ban was renewed on April 3, 1417.380 It resulted in a real conflict between the Republic of Ragusa and the despotate.381 This conflict is well described in several long suits filed by Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica, who informed the Republic of Ragusa, on August 18, 1417, that Bogdan, Duke of Despot Stefan, came to Srebrenica accompanied by Ragusans who were lessees of Srebrenica customs. This duke scheduled a meeting with Ragusan merchants to give them two orders. The Ragusan merchants met and chose eight men to speak on their behalf before duke Bogdan and see what it was all about. Duke Bogdan first brusquely informed them about despot’s first order, which concerned Despot Stefan’s introduction of the same tax law in Srebrenica which was in force in Novo Brdo as well. This tax law would come in force after August 15, the same year. Then, he issued another order regarding despot’s money. Namely, the despot ordered that all workers in mines and citizens of Srebrenica be informed that they must not buy and sell for silver itself but instead for despot’s money. All those who disobey this order

376 M. P u c i c, Spomenici srpski I, Biograd, 1858, pp. 128-130.377 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv; Rog. 1415-1418, fol. 29, citation found in V. C o r o v i c, op. cit. in

Prilozi, p. 64.378 Ibid., Lettere e Commissioni di Levante, IV, f. 147, comment N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 154.379 V. C o r o v i c, loc. cit.380 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p.158.381 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., pp. 65-66.

142will be severely punished: the person who disobeys the order will be considered a traitor and will lose all their possessions. This had a devastating impact on both the Ragusan merchants and customs officers in Srebrenica. In regard to the first order, which limited their profit and trade in silver, they were very upset. They complained, that this act of raising the customs duty in Srebrenica, in line with the provisions which were in force in Novo Brdo, brought even more harm to Ragusans, and that it was purely despot’s doing. The second order which referred to obligatory introduction of despot’s money truly shook the Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica. They immediately distanced themselves from it, saying that such an act represented a break with tradition and that they could not concede to it until they have informed the Republic of Ragusa about it. Despot’s officers were entrusted with carrying out these orders. Especially energetic and harsh in carrying out the customs orders was Squire Radin, Despot Stefan’s and Duke Bogdan’s man, whom the Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica especially complained about. The Republic of Ragusa sent a message to its merchants in Srebrenica not to concede to new duties. This led to heavy and extremely unbearable conflicts.382 As a result of these relations and conflicts on September 22 the same year yet another ban, which froze any trade with Srebrenica, was imposed. Srebrenica and Zvornik were informed about this, with a message to inform of this decision all other Ragusan merchants who may not be familiar with it, and who might come there from some other place. All those who disregard this order will have to pay a 500 perperas fine. Despot Stefan was enraged by this act on behalf of the Republic of Ragusa, so he put his men ‘капиџије’ (knights) on all gorges and passes across the River Drina, who forced the Ragusans to go to Srebrenica.383 However, things are not as simple as they seem. Customs officers from Srebrenica sent ‘kapidzije’ (knights) out of fear of financial losses. This can be seen clearly in one typical case where a ‘kapidzija’ (a knight) complained that customs officers did not pay him out 150 aspras which were promised to him for a month of service. In view of that, customs officers later on claimed, under the fear of punishment, that they, these ‘kapidzije’ (knights) were on their payroll, which came from despot’s revenues. In regard to this, the Republic of Ragusa ordered a private investigation on October 22. The investigation was entrusted to the three Ragusans in Srebrenica, Mihailo Sorkocevic, Zan Gucetic and Blaz Boboljevic.384 But, the Ragusans had just about had enough of these inconveniences and unpleasant events so they started working on settling the matter. To this effect the Republic of Ragusa on November 9 the same year sent an embassy to meet with Despot Stefan. The embassy was comprised of Nikola Gucetic and Dobro Bincola, whose instructions were to act in a cordial and competent manner towards Despot Stefan in order to settle and resolve all previous conflicts and inconveniences. In order for this matter to go smoothly and end with the desired result, a speech was written in the rector’s office in Ragusa, and the emissaries were to read it before Despot Stefan. The speech first mentions good and cordial relations that existed, from very early on, between the Republic of Ragusa and Serbia and Stefan’s predecessors and that they always had certain benefits. But, a no-good among despot’s men, won over by the

382 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv: Lett. E Com. Di Levante, V, f. 39-41; N. J o r g a, op. cit., p 159; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 67; K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba IV, p. 162.

383 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv: Rog. 1417, f. 79; Lett. et Comm. V, f. 42-44, 54-55; N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 159; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 67.

384 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., pp. 67-68.

143‘devil, God’s apostate’, wrongly informed the despot, which led to disagreement and unpleasant events, such as pillaging and incarceration of Ragusan merchants in Novo Brdo and Srebrenica; then, it was said that the Ragusan merchants defended Serbian towns from Turks as their ‘own homeland’. After he got Srebrenica, despot issued a charter that gave the Ragusan merchants all their earlier benefits. However, these new taxes in Srebrenica put at risk both merchants and trade. So Despot Stefan should lift the new duty in Srebrenica.385 However, even before the embassy had even had a chance to come before the despot with their elaborate and crafty speech, despot was well informed about the content of the speech. He found out about it from a Ragusan noble from Srebrenica, Marin Gradic, who informed him about it with the purpose of turning him against the Republic of Ragusa. Taking all this into consideration, it is clear that M. Gucetic, who plotted and informed in order to get his hands on Srebrenica’s duties, did all this with the sole purpose of winning a name for himself and acquiring personal gain, what he succeeded. Marin Drazic’s benedict said on one occasion that he was in Krusevac, at the time local shrove was taking place in 1417, on Despot Stefan’s court, where he talked to Marin Gradic and Jakov Vodopija. On this occasion, the Benedict learned that they had bought Srebrenica’s duties for 3.000 libras of silver. Regarding this, an agreement has been made that stated that neither of despot’s men in Srebrenica was allowed to exchange a single aksad of silver to anyone else but the customs officers. In order to put this in practice Despot Stefan gave them one of his courtiers who was in charge of looking after all of the passages thus preventing Ragusans from transporting goods which do not bear Radin’s seal, a man who was in charge of collecting new customs duty in Srebrenica and who was paid by the lessees.386 Things could not stay like this for a very long time. On May 4, 1418 the Republic decided once again to break trading relations with Serbia, so it issued an order to the town’s customs office ‘not to clear the goods of merchants who want to go to Srebrenica, the area belonging to despot, and that merchants have to give a sworn statement that they are not going there.’ All those who disobey this order will be punished with half the worth of goods fine.387 This new breakup of trading relations had a rather bad effect on Despot Stefan. In order to settle the matter, despot offered the Republic a deal. Namely, despot agreed to concede on his part on some of the demands, and the Republic of Ragusa should accept some of the new duties. The Republic of Ragusa took a lot of time to decide on the matter, and on October 3, the same year decided to allow trade with the despotate. It was not until December 30 that the Republic wrote to merchants in Srebrenica to pay a ‘ducat of duty the despot insisted on’.388

385 On this occasion the Republic of Ragusa asked its embassy, that was in Srebrenica, to bring with them old charters on benefits, given to them by Bosnian and Hungarian rulers, on their return. The letter regarding this issue reads: ‘Since we have been informed that our Latin and Slavic charters (that were given to us) by Bosnia and Hungary are here in Srebrenica in the hands of Nikola’s Jovan Gucetic, make sure that he or those who have them give them to you and have them copied, Latin ones in Latin and Slavic ones in Slavic, and give copies to merchants, and take originals with you, and in case of necessity show and use those that you have to, and on your way home, bring them with you to Ragusa, so we would not have to worry about finding them when the need to refer to them arises.’ – Lett. et Comm. V, f. Pp. 54-56; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 68.

386 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 166-168; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., pp. 69-70.387 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv.; Rog. II, f. 113; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 70.388 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 168. The same year Despot Stefan sent a word to the customs officers in

144 This led to the improvement of relations between the Republic of Ragusa and Despot Stefan’s Serbia and thus the life in Srebrenica was restored to normal. After the afore-mentioned conflicts on October 28, 1420, there were some new lawsuits and certain disagreements between Stefan and the Republic of Ragusa.389 Namely, in 1421, Despot Stefan went to Zeta, where a war broke out due to Balsin’s inheritance between Serbia and the Venetians. Certain Ragusan merchants accompanied the despot which both surprised and enraged the Republic of Ragusa so ‘fearing the reaction of the Venetians, the Republic of Ragusa ordered them to go back and under no circumstances prolong their stay in Zeta’.390 After this, during 1421, a series of negotiations between Despot Stefan and the Republic of Ragusa regarding regulation of mutual relations ensued.391 Towards the end of 1421, some of the Ragusans were once again arrested in Srebrenica. The word about it reached the Republic of Ragusa at the beginning of January 1422. The Ragusans were not familiar with all the details regarding these events.392 At the time, one of Ragusan’s deputations, which consisted of Miho Rasic and Nikola Pucic, went to meet with Despot Stefan in order to discuss restoration of good and cordial relations with the Republic. This deputation finished the negotiations successfully and informed the Republic of the existence of good faith on the behalf of the despot. On this occasion the deputation explained the matter concerning the arrest of the Ragusan subjects in Srebrenica. Apparently, one of the Ragusans got drunk. And drunk as he was, he had three Ragusan squires, Zivan, Gocko and Maroje Gucetic, put ‘into prison’ illegally. Despot Stefan had them released immediately. Besides this, on several other occasions despot accommodated and did favors for Ragusan merchants. The Republic of Ragusa was extremely grateful for this.393 From then on the relations between The Republic of Ragusa and Despot Stefan were friendly for a longer period of time.394

The following example shows an interesting and distinctive detail in the life of the Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica. Namely, on May 18, 1424, Maroje Drzic sued Nikola and Ivan Sarak, Ragusan customs officers in Srebrenica, for they imposed customs duties on trade between Zvornik and Srebrenica. Drzic had a ‘botega’ in Srebrenica. ‘A customs officer, who had his men in front of the house of a burgher Vukoslav near the Franciscan church’, brought him before the court and ordered him to pay the men as a fee or ‘udav’ 50 perperas for the cloth that he brought from Visoko. Maroje Drzic points out that before this event cloth in Srebrenica was duty-free. While he was away, customs officers turned Dragisa Dincic, district prefect, himself against him. Due to this, Maroje Drzic did not dare to go back to Srebrenica, so he even asked Vukasin Zlatonosovic to speak on his behalf and protect him. But, Dragisa Dincic was furious and did not want

Srebrenica, Maroje, Benko and Jaksa, to pay Miho, Matko’s and Maroje’s nephew fifteen liters of silver for ‘kontós’ (a type of coat) and ‘bass’ that he bought from him from custom’s money. – M. P u c i c, Spomenici srpski II, p. 64. Despot sends a word to Benko and Jaksa that he bought a house in Mitrovica from Miho, and he issued an order stating that Miho is to be paid five liters of silver. – Loc. cit., Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma knjiga I, Beograd – S. Karlovci, 1929, p. 221.

389 See V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., pp. 70-71.390 St. S t a n o j e v i c, op. cit., p. 461; N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 199-200.391 See M. P u c i c, op. cit. I, pp. XXI-XXVII; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 71.392 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv., Rog. III, f. 65; N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 201; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 72.393 M. P u c i c, op. cit. I, pp. 160-161, 164-165. Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, op. cit., pp. 226-227.394 S. L j u b i c, Listine VIII, Zagreb, 1886, pp. 210-211; M. P u c i c, op. cit. II, p. 79; V. C o r o v i c,

op. cit., p.72.

145to concede, claiming that he was greatly embarrassed and spoken ill of on the part of Maroje Drzic.395 A different and extremely important issue is the relationship Bosnian state had towards Despot Stefan because of Srebrenica. First of all, Bosnian nobles could not forget the concession of Srebrenica to Stefan. This was the reason why, shortly after Srebrenica came under despot’s rule, Bosnians were preparing to take action and win it back. That was the time when Turks started invading Bosnia, especially in 1414 and 1415. The Turkish attack that took place in August 1415 was especially fierce. However, Bosnian nobles were not the least bit discouraged to launch an attack on Srebrenica. We see this in a letter the Republic of Ragusa sent to Hungarian king. The same year on August 18, the Republic of Ragusa informed the Hungarian king that Bosnian nobles were preparing to attack Srebrenica and win it over.396 Regarding this issue the report reads: ‘barones Bosne fuerunt ad universalem colloquium et deliberaverunt auferre Srebernizam’. Six days after this a number of rebellions flared up in the surroundings of the River Sutjeska.397 Due to these internal conflicts among Bosnians on the one hand and Turkish attacks, as well as a significant strengthening of Despot Stefan on the other, the attack on Srebrenica was delayed.398

In the month of July 1425, in Srebrenica Despot Stefan was preoccupied about keeping up spirits in town and thus be of help to him in the event of a Turkish attack. However, on that occasion the Turks did not touch Srebrenica.399 At the beginning of October the same year the relationships and circumstances in Srebrenica were completely normal and a certain deposit was discussed; at the end of the month, however, a war on the River Drina was raging, and Srebrenica itself was occupied,400 and shortly afterwards came under Bosnian rule. It happened in the following way: seeing that Serbs were in trouble, Bosnian King Tvrtko II together with Bosnians decided to take over Srebrenica from Despot Stefan so he prepared a decisive attack. Taking part and standing out in this attack was the Dincic family. On this occasion Bosnian army burned down the town of Srebrenica thus causing damage to the Ragusans who were in town in the amount of 50.000 ducats. Despot Stefan turned his army against Bosnians at the same time Turks started invading Bosnia.401 Despot and his army were acting in a fast and successful manner. When he crossed the swollen waters of the River Drina in the most impassable part, Bosnian king Tvrtko and his army were scared and did not dare to wait for him so they ran away.

395 K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski, Spomenik XI, pp. 75-76.396 Diplom. Ragus, pp. 251-252; N. Jorga, op. cit., p. 150; F. S i s i c, op. cit., pp. 234-235; G e l c i c h

–T h a l l ó c z y, Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae Ragusane cum regno Hungariae, Budapest, 1887, p. 251.

397 For further reference see N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 150-151; G e l c i c h – T h a l l ó c z y, op. cit., p. 261; Rad Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti VII, 1869, p. 229; J. R a d o n i c, O knezu Pavlu Radenovcu, Novi Sad, 1901, pp. 51-52; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 74; id., Historija Bosne I, pp. 416-417.

398 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit. in Prilozi II, p. 74.399 Id., Historija Bosne I, pp. 434-435.400 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 241-243; K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba II, p. 130; IV, p. 90; M. D i n i c,

Srebrnik kraj Srebrenice, Glas CLXI, p. 192; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 75.401 Dipl. Rog., p. 319; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 75 where he wonders ‘whether this synchronized attack

was a matter of agreement or joint revenge. ‘

146Despot Stefan started to chase him, so Tvrtko retreated to the fortified town of Sutiska, from which he sent an embassy to negotiate peace with Despot Stefan. Although we are not familiar with the peace terms, peace was restored, and after that Despot Stefan and his army returned to Serbia.402 On this occasion the despot obtained significant spoils of war from Bosnians, the most important being the cannons; despot sent the biggest cannon to Belgrade, and two smaller ones were shipped to Srebrnik, near Srebrenica: ‘Оςта жɛ и прашта нχ гаагомεмаɪа Хаьмьκа κоупьио ςһ иныма дбѣма. Дɛςпоть жɛ повɛлѣ κɛлиκоνю κь Бѣльгρадь κɛςтн, пρочɛɪє жɛ κһ Сρɛбρьниκһ, ςамһ жɛ κһ ςтраны κоςһɪˈьςκыɪє κьнндɛ, гьнабь κралю плѣноваашɛ’.403

At the beginning of November the same year there is a reference to the Ragusan merchants again being incarcerated in a fortress in Srebrenica.404 It is evident that those were the same merchants that, in the month of October of the same year, took part in the defense of the town on the side of Despot Stefan and against Bosnian army of King Tvrtko, who was extremely annoyed and due to wrote a threatening letter to the Republic of Ragusa.405

In the month of May 1426, Despot Stefan went to Tata with the intention of making a deal with the Hungarian King Sigismund. Under the provisions of this agreement, Hungarian king accepted and recognized as Stefan’s successor Durad Brankovic. And in return, Serbs gave Hungarians Belgrade, Golubac and Macva.406 After Sultan Murat II received news about it, he started preparing hastily to launch an attack on Serbia. His army went into action and came as far as Krusevac from where certain troops invaded Bosnia. Despot Stefan was preparing for resistance. But, since he wanted to resolve this issue peacefully, he sent an embassy to Sofia where the sultan was staying. The negotiations between the emissaries and the sultan were successful.407

On July 25, 1426 Despot Stefan issued a charter ‘in descensu nostro Zreberniza’ which means that at the time this town was in Serbian hands and that Despot Stefan was situated in Srebrenica at the time.408

Towards the end of Despot Stefan’s rule Srebrenica played a visibly important role and it was given special attention. Constantine the Philosopher, despot Stefan’s biographer, writes, without mentioning any dates, how despot fell ill and fearing he might die, sent for his nephew Durad Brankovic, and called a meeting in Srebrenica with the patriarch, archpriests, nobles and all members of the authority and the selected few. In front of all of them at this meeting the despot pronounced Durad as his successor and told them that he left Durad to take his place after he was gone. Uttering a prayer, he

402 C o n s t a n t i n e, (Glasnik XLII), pp. 316-317. At that time Ragusan merchants from Srebrenica caused Bosnian king Tvrtko II damage in the amount of 10.000 ducats. V. C o r o v i c, (op. cit., p. 75) is of the opinion that Bosnian attack was one of despot’s main means for defense from Turks, because it showed that the relations between himself and Bosnian king, who made peace with Hungarians the year before, were not strong, and by that neither were the relations with Hungarians.

403 C o n s t a n t i n e, p. 317.404 S t. S t a n o j e v i c, Pipo Spano, Beograd, 1901, p. 11; M. D i n i c, op. cit., p 193.405 M. D i n i c, loc. cit.406 J o v. R a d o n i c, Sporazum u Tati 1426 i srpsko-ugarski odnosi od XIII-XVI veka, Glas CLXXX-

VII, pp. 179-193. 407 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 75; J. R a d o n i c, op. cit., p. 174.408 Acta arch. Ven. II, p. 260; K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba IV, p. 135 comment 7; M. D i n i c, op. cit., p. 190; L j u b i c, Listine IX, p. 18.

147put his hands on Durad, and had everybody sworn in to be loyal to him, and he cursed all those who chose not to. Then, despot had Durad give a sworn oath that he would not dismiss his methods but, the same way he took care of everything himself, Durad would do so as well. Regarding this, despot’s biographer says: ‘Благчһςςтнъааго жɛ дɛςпота Стɛфана поςтижɛ мноижа׀ɛ Ƃолɛςтһ иожһна׀а ׀єгожɛ нзһ давһна ςтраждалшɛ. Тѣмһ жɛ и множа׀ɛ ςһмрьти оуъо׀акһ ςɛ поςһ׀а׀ɛт по нɛти׀а ςко׀ɛго гоςподнна Гюрһг׀а н приХодитһ ςһ кь мѣςтѣ нарица׀ɛмѣмһ Срɛърһнца н тоу ςһънра׀ɛтһ ςһ патрн׀׀арһХомһ ςһъорһ чьɛтһиһ׀иХь арХн׀єрɛи и ълагородһнһ׀иХһ вһςѣХһ влаςтɛн жɛ и кһςтѣХь нзъраиһ׀нХһ н ълагоςловл׀а׀єтһ того ςһъоромһ на гоςподьςтко, глагол׀є отһ ׀кһ׀׀׀׀а ςɛго познаитɛ го׀подна кһ мѣςто мɛнɛ. ІЄгожɛ и молитъокаъһшɛ роукһ ъьзложɛни׀ємь, тажɛ и ъһςѣХһ оклина׀єтһ ׀єжɛ ъѣрномһ ׀ємоу ъыти. Проклина׀єтһ жɛ ХотɛштинХ ׀ςɛѣрһςтко ко׀є кьздкнгноути. Тажɛ и ςамого заклинл׀єтһ ׀єжɛ по чниоу ׀єгока кһςς׀итѣин׀а ɛ׀ɛ прѣзрѣтн, нһ ׀акожɛ азь ςамь о кһςѣХһ промһ׀ςлһ нмѣтн ХотѣХһ тако н тһ׀. Иъо мнози поςлоужьυςɛи ςоутһ мнѣ, нмьжɛ кһздатн нɛ оуςпѣХһ. И многа׀а пооучнкь о ълагчһςтнн и заиокѣдакһ. Тѣмһ жɛ отһ толѣ кѣрьнѣншн миожа׀є гоςподнноу ςко׀ємоу прнςкмалХоу ςɛ юномоу нɛжɛ прһкѣ׀є. Оздракѣкһ жɛ ълагочһςтнкһ׀н отһ оно׀є колѣзннн, Хождалшɛ ълага׀а ткорɛ. p. 65’409

According to historical facts established by now, this convention in Srebrenica only accepted Durad Brankovic as the successor of the Serbian throne and nothing else.410

Towards the end of both Despot Stefan’s life and rule there was yet another confrontation and a very important riot regarding Srebrenica which had some far reaching consequences.411 These unfavorable events were organized by, among others, Ragusans, the price of which they paid in men, material goods and many other adversities that ensued. That is to say that the relations between the Republic of Ragusa and Despot Stefan were strained once again. In the month of July 1425, due to some injustices done to Ragusan merchants on the part of the despotate, the Ragusan merchants protested in Novo Brdo. An embassy was sent to meet with Despot Stefan in order to complain about it, but both the protests and complaints were to no avail. Due to this the Republic of Ragusa, on October 8, banned trade with the state of Despot Stefan, and being enraged as they were they also banned trade with the area under the rule of Durad Brankovic, a great friend to the Republic of Ragusa. However, despite the ban, the Republic of Ragusa did not break all ties, and especially with Serbians who could export weapons without any difficulty.412 The ban was somewhat altered on January 1426 when a trading permission ‘across Zeta and everywhere in Bosnia, except Srebrenica’413 was given. A special round of negotiations was held in between March and May the same year. 409 C o n s t a n t i n e, p. 316.410 N i k o l a R a d o j c i c, Srpski drzavni sabori u srednjem veku, Posebna izdanja Srpske akademije

nauka, knjiga CXXX (1940), p. 179. J. R a d o n c i c, (op. cit., pp. 192-193) thinks that this conven-tion took place in Srebrenica around the middle of July in 1426, as well as that Despot Stefan’s inten-tion was to show Bosnians how safe he felt in this area.

411 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 75.412 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 226; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 76.413 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p.229; V. C o r o v i c, loc. cit.

148Matters of dispute were some mining pits, houses and various other things that were taken away and should be given back. In order for the Republic of Ragusa to settle the matter in their favor, they had chosen two members of the colony of Srebrenica as their delegates whose task was to negotiate with Despot Stefan and, in case of an emergency, they were instructed to give all necessary information. As was very often the case in the past, the embassy, as it appears, did not succeed this time either. Partly owing to this and partly due to otherwise strained relations, in spring 1427 an open riot broke out. Despot’s biographer, Constantine the Philosopher, writes that a harsh confrontation took place near Srebrenica, where many silversmiths lived. The silversmiths killed the mine superintendent and threw him out of the palace.414

In despot’s biography, written by Constantine the Philosopher, someone added in handwriting that the name of the afore-mentioned mine superintendent was Vladislav.415 M. Orbini, discussing this event, mentions the same name. Orbini says that Despot Stefan ‘mandò in Srebarniza un suo gentil huomo addimandato Vladislav, per governo di quel luogo’416 Due to this event despot himself came to Srebrenica where he pronounced a harsh sentence for the Ragusans who lived in Srebrenica. Many Ragusans ran away, and those who were captured by the despot had their arms and legs cut off.417 In regard to this, despot’s biographer writes: ‘Бѣшɛ бо мѣςто подһ прѣдһ рɛчɛнь׀нмь градомһ Срɛбрьннцѣ, кн ׀ємһжɛ ςрɛбродѣльци множьςтко, ижɛ н поςьана юношоу надһ дѣаи. Нѣции жɛ боун подбнгьшɛ ςһпорһ оубншɛ ׀єго ςһ полаты крһгһшɛ. Сн׀а жɛ оукѣдѣкһ, подвигһ ςɛ ςамь н мѣςтоу отһбѣгһшоу, иѣкһ׀нХһжɛ и ׀ɛма нɛпокины׀ɛ радн крһки окьςѣцашɛ роукһ׀ н ногһ418’׀ This infamous act caused huge disturbance in the Republic of Ragusa. On the other hand, whenever Despot Stefan recalled the event, according to Constantine the Philosopher, he would feel desperate and cry bitterly.419 In order to appease Despot Stefan, on April 16, the Republic of Ragusa sent its emissaries, Raskoje Patic and Junije Gradic, with the mission to meet with the despot and save others and settle the disagreements. The Republic of Ragusa, on this occasion, through its emissaries submitted an application to Despot Stefan, explaining that if those unfortunate wretches felt guilty, they too would run away as those true culprits did; but even if they were guilty, they should have been treated with consideration and mercy due to the respect shown, on more than one occasion, on the part of the Republic

414 V. C o r o v i c, claims (op. cit., p. 77) that the rebellion might have been organized in cooperation with some of the other enemies of the despot.

415 K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba IV, p. 158. 416 M. O r b i n i, Il regno de gli Slavi (1601), p. 323.417 V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 76, referring to a report by Dubrovacka drzavna arhiva Rog. III, pp. 317-

318, says how Despot Stefan on this occasion had their, those who were guilty and who failed to escape, arms and legs cut off. – However, as it can be seen from the account of despot’s biographer, Constantine the Philosopher, on that occasion many of those who were punished by the enraged des-pot were not guilty.

418 C o n s t a n t i n e, p. 317-318; compare L. M i r k o v i c, PhD, Stare srpske biografije XV i XVII vijeka SK. No. 205, Beograd, 1936, pp. 114-115. Stari bosanski letopis by f r a N i k o l a L a s v a n i n places this rebellion in 1419 and 1420. It is written in the Annals that the name of the murdered officer in Srebrenica was Vladislav. – F r a J u l i a n J e l i n i c, PhD, Ljetopis fra Nikole Lasvanina, Sarajevo, 1916, p. 42. C. M i j a t o v i c, holds that the rebellion happened in 1421. – Despot Durad Brankovic, Beograd, 1880, p. 37, p. 58.

419 C o n s t a n t i n e, loc. cit.

149of Ragusa towards Despot Stefan and Serbia. It is for this reason that the Republic of Ragusa implored Despot Stefan to free the remaining prisoners and recover their property. But Despot Stefan, who was extremely angry because of these events and the rebellion in Srebrenica, did not even want to hear them out. Judging by the fact that Despot Stefan himself went to Srebrenica to crush the rebellion, it can be concluded that this riot had far reaching consequences and was quite serious, and it was the reason why Despot Stefan was very angry with the Republic of Ragusa.420 Although Despot Stefan refused to receive the embassy the first time, they came again before the despot to beseech him. The emissaries managed to get the support of D. Brankovic to intervene with the despot for their cause; they also asked Sandal Hranic, despot’s son-in-law, to intervene with the despot for their cause. Despot Stefan could not be persuaded, and he advised the emissaries to leave.421 After this, the Republic of Ragusa, on June 16 the same year, advised its emissaries to try their luck with the despot the third time, with the instructions to remind despot of the good relations that existed between the Republic of Ragusa and Serbia in the past, of their mutual love for each other, and despot’s ‘fatherly rage’, as well as of the punishment for those unfortunate Ragusan wretches that were still in prison. Since neither of these appeals on the part of the Republic of Ragusa was successful, it put a ban on the trade with the state of Despot Stefan again. During Despot Stefan’s lifetime the relations between the despotate and the Republic of Ragusa did not become any better and the issue of Ragusans in Srebrenica was left as it was. On July 19, 1427, Despot Stefan died a violent death near the village of Glavice near Kragujevac,422 and it was left to Durad Brankovic, a great friend to the Republic of Ragusa, to resolve the Ragusan issue in Srebrenica.

IV

After the death of Despot Stefan, Durad Brankovic had to follow through on the terms of the agreement made by his uncle and turn over Belgrade and Macva to Hungarians. This resulted not only in the Turkish attack on Serbia but also in local riots. The duke of Golubac was more willing to turn his fortified town over to Turks and abandon his master than to hand it over to Hungarians. Turkish army also conquered Krusevo and for a long time tried, to no avail, to conquer Novo Brdo. It was not long before Serbia became a battle ground where Serbian, Hungarian and Turkish troops shed blood and looted.423 In these circumstances Durad Brankovic did not want to come

420 Compare V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p.77.421 J u n i j e R a s t i c explains that despot Stefan took this stand because despot suspected they had an

agreement with Turks. – Chronica Ragusiana, Scriptores II, ed. S. Nodilo, Zagrebiae, 1893, p. 231.422 The epitaph on despot Stefan Lazarevic’s tombstone reads: ‘госнодниһ вһςѣмь Срһблɛмһ и

Πодонавіо и Поςавіω и чɛςтн огрһςкіɛ зɛмли и коςьнςкіɛ, ɛщɛжɛ и поморію зɛтςкомо’; Sre-brnica should be considered part of Bosnian land. – Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi I, no. 245.

423 J i r e c e k believes, Geschichte der Serben, II, p. 164, that Bosnians used this opportunity to attack Srebrenica and burn down its suburbs. He did not document this piece of information and, as far as it is known, the reason why he believes this to be true might be a letter dated April 19, 1428 which was sent by the Republic of Ragusa to Bosnian king. However, the events in question evidently refer to the period of Despot Stefan’s rule. Compare with N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 241-242. To my mind

150in conflict with other neighbors, and especially not the Republic of Ragusa, which would come in handy with the permit on the import of weapons and ammunition. Thus, he freed its citizens, who were incarcerated during the latest rebellion in Srebrenica and on December 13, 1428 he recognized all of their charters and explicitly stated: ‘да нѣ намѣта ДƔброкчананомЬь Ɣ трһгокɛХһ гоςподςтка мн’424 It is true that, at that time, some minor local disputes arose in Srebrenica,425 but they did not affect otherwise good relations nor were they attributed to Despot Durad as some evil will on his part in the Republic of Ragusa. In the Republic of Ragusa he stood for a true friend of the Republic; we have seen on many occasions that he was the one who was asked to mediate between his uncle, Despot Stefan, and the Republic of Ragusa and that he always conceded to such wishes. The hardships that came about from time to time always revolved around the issue of customs. Each new tax or new provision concerning this issue stirred Ragusan merchants and due to, almost immediately, a frequent exchange of very articulate letters ensued. During 1430, certain new fairly unfamiliar customs provisions were introduced. Regarding this issue the Republic of Ragusa, in July, decided to approach despot’s brother-in-law, Kalojan, asking him to intercede with the despot and ask him to intervene, that is to say, to rescind the decree. On September 5, this was explained in a letter addressed to the local customs officers saying that they should not introduce ‘any novelties’ and that they should rescind all of them but the regular one which was imposed on their part.426 The following year the subject of the Republic of Ragusa’s complaints, besides customs duty, was the issue of money. Since 1417, Srebrenica had a mint for Serbian money. In 1431, this mint was producing rather low quality money since they were mixing four ounces of copper with a libra of silver. Some of the Ragusans were involved in the affair. The Republic of Ragusa informed Durad of this and complained about this matter, and severely reprimanded its fellow-citizens, on October 6 and 7, 1431.427

Towards the end of 1432 and in 1433 hard days ensued in Srebrenica and its surroundings. Bosnian king could not forget the rich mining town of Srebrenica and he was looking for an opportunity to restore it back in favor of his country. To this day we cannot see any immediate reason that would cause hostility between Despot Durad and King Tvrtko II. The report dated November 11, 1432, which the Republic of Ragusa sent to Hungarian king, only mentions that a dispute arose between the two and that they were wreaking malice on one another and causing damage to each other on the

this would otherwise seem unlikely considering the fact that right about that time Tvrtko II was in close relations with King Sigismund and it is hard to believe that he would rise against his ally at the moment when Turks were attacking both of them and when Hungarians sided with Serbs around Ravanica. By the way, there is no reference to this Bosnian attack in any other document from this period. – Compare M. D i n i c, op. cit., pp. 194-195.

424 Monumenta serbica, p. 354; Zakonski spomenici pp. 89-90; Orbini p. 263; J i r e c e k, Handelstras-sen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien, p. 53.

425 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 248. Pirko Bolesalic, complained to the rector on February 20, 1428 that two Ragusans captured him and put him in shackles. – Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knjiga II, 2, pp. 422-423.

426 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv, Rog. IV, f. 229; N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 284.427 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 301.

151borderlines.428 It is evident, however, that all these struggles were related to Srebrenica. Throughout the first half of 1433, both Bosnian and Serbian armies were gathering on the surrounding areas of Zvornik and Srebrenica and both the king and the despot were accompanying their troops. Standing next to the despot, as king’s opponent, was his father’s brother-in-law Duke Sandal Hranic, that is to say, despot’s uncle on his mother’s side. The details of this war are unfamiliar. Despot Durad established relations with Turks and it was not long before they, too, took a stand against Tvrtko II. First of all, the sultan sold a part of the area belonging to Duke Radoslav Pavlovic to the Republic of Ragusa earlier, and on this occasion he was selling Tvrtko’s state to Durad and Sandalj. To be more precise, Despot Durad got Zvornik and Teocak and thus gained a title of Master of the Usora; so he undoubtedly came out as a winner from this fight. The second malevolent act that Turks did to King Tvrtko II was the fact that they promoted and started helping his opponent ‘King’ Radivoje. Following these events, the position of king Tvrtko II became impossible to maintain and by the end of 1433 he was forced to leave Bosnia and run to his relatives who lived abroad.429

During these confrontations Serbs became very strict in Srebrenica itself, as was the case in other parts of Bosnia. The authorities of Despot Durad confiscated mining properties belonging to some of the Ragusans, probably due to their owners’ suspicious behavior or their resistance to follow the orders. Some of the properties were confiscated out of sheer rapacity. It is explicitly mentioned that some of the confiscated houses were held by Toma Kantakuzen, Despot Durad’s wife’s relative and that it was very hard to restore them back to their rightful owners. When the Republic of Ragusa, in July 1433, wrote to Despot Durad to ask for and complain about this, he promised that he would redress the wrongdoing.430 However, during 1434, Despot Durad sold Srebrenica customs office to a Turk, named Jusuf, probably due to the help he provided during the last year’s war, and counterbalanced the rights and obligations with those that were already in force in Novo Brdo. Upon receiving the news of this, the Republic of Ragusa, on February 21, 1435, broke all trading relations with Srebrenica, thus hoping to force Despot Durad to concede. At the same time the Republic of Ragusa ordered its fellow-citizens who were merchants in Srebrenica to go to Despot Durad and complain and ask for the things to be restored to their previous state. In case the despot was away in Hungary, they were to see his wife and tell her that they know that ‘she has the power to do more than that’. On this occasion they were also to speak with her brother, ‘Mister’ Toma Kantakuzen.431 Since none of the attempts brought about a positive answer, the Republic of Ragusa, on March 31, decided to complain about the issue to Hungarian king and Matija Korvin, asking both of them to protect them in this respect.432 When no concessions have been made following this, on July 8, it sent a new embassy to meet with the despot. They were to welcome Despot Durad’s happy return to the country and then inform him of their troubles and imposed taxes in Srebrenica and Novo Brdo and

428 Diplomatarium Ragusanum, p. 378.429 J. R a d o n i c, Der Grossvojvode von Bosnien Sandalj Hranic-Kosaca. Archiv für slav. Phil. XIX,

pp. 462-464; C. J i r e c e k, Geschichte der Serben II, p. 169.430 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 316-317. On July 19, 1433, Despot Durad was in Srebrenica. – T h a l l ó c

z ý–Á l d a s y, op. cit., pp. 95-96.431 Op. cit., 325, pp. 334-335.432 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv; Rog. V, 258.

152reiterate their old wishes. The embassy did not succeed in their intention. As their main opponent emerged Toma Kantakuzen, who said that he would use his influence on their behalf in the Serbian court only if the Ragusans accepted his terms. The main reason why the Republic of Ragusa complained was this: Srebrenica is actually a Bosnian town, and all mining places in this country such as Visoki, Dezevice, Fojnica and Kresevo are free and have no such duties. However, this kind of reasoning was more provoking rather than convincing. Right now Srebrenica is, it could have been said, under Serbian rule and Serbian despot, in his own country, can pass any law he wants without any regard to other places in Bosnia and other parts of his country.433 Serbs put forward another argument against the Republic of Ragusa and that was that their creditors charged Serbian debtors twice for their debt. The Republic of Ragusa promised that it would punish such offenders harshly and it wrote to its merchants strictly forbidding them to do such things. At the same time the Republic passed a strict decree against those of its subjects who were involved in debasing despot’s money. One of the letters of the Republic of Ragusa, dated August 17, 1435, reveals some details concerning these issues that the Ragusans were complaining about. One of Vladislav Gucetic’s debtors, Durko Misljenovic, whom his creditor had kept locked in his house, was forcefully released. Another Ragusan debtor, Miljen Budesevic, received a letter from the despot saying that he is absolved from debt. Ragusan merchants, agitated by these acts, had every right to protest and say that this is nothing else but confiscation of their property and that such actions hindered trade.434 But the Republic did not want the protests to freeze the relations between itself and the despotate. In January, 1463 Ragusan merchants were given orders to send yet another embassy to Despot Durad and settle the matter. This time, in order to succeed in their intent, they were allowed to offer bribe to despot’s aides and first of all to ‘Mister’ Toma Kantakuzen. The highest amount that they could offer in bribing was a gift no more than 13 libars of silver worth, and the two emissaries that would go there were given 6 libars each. The amount was to be collected among the merchants in Srebrenica but in such a way that everybody gave their share. The Republic vowed for this purpose 700 perperas. After that, on February 28, the Republic of Ragusa sent its emissary, Jakov Sorkocevic, to meet with Despot Durad. On his way there he would stop by in Srebrenica and inquire into the state of affairs, and then tell despot that things were getting worse there by the day and that merchants were leaving town on a large scale and moving out. And even if the word that Jusuf, the customs officer, restored things to how they were reached the Republic of Ragusa, the mission should be carried out: first, to confirm that is truly the case, and second, to have that confirmed ‘in black and white’. Sorkocevic sent a rather discomforting reply to the Republic of Ragusa from Smederevo. Despot’s act gives a very bad example to Bosnians. Despot recommended that the same regulations that were in force in Prishtina be introduced in Srebrenica, which, to Sorkocevic, seemed even worse than those already in force. While the despot was interested in having unique regulations for all mining towns in his country, the Republic of Ragusa wanted Srebrenica to be left out on the grounds of being an old Bosnian place. Sorkocevic’s only hope was the intervention of the brave Hungarian magnate, Matko Talovac, who was born on the island of Korcula, who made a name for himself both in Serbian and Hungarian services, and later on became the commander of

433 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 329.434 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv; Com. E Lettere, 1435, f. 262.

153Belgrade, and from 1345 on, he was a Viceroy of Croatia and Dalmatia. He began his career as a merchant and was trading right there, in Srebrenica; thus, he was going to be able to remind the despot of how things were and implore him to concede on the Serbian behalf.435 However, the issues could not be resolved not even with his help. The truth of the matter was that Serbs were not willing to concede for no one’s sake. The instruction, prepared on this occasion, in February 1436, for the Ragusan emissary, is interesting in regard to both Srebrenica and the Republic of Ragusa. As Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica were both ‘poor and worn out’ the Republic decided that it would meet the costs incurred by the embassy. When its emissary arrived to Srebrenica, local merchants were to call a meeting ‘secretly and cautiously’ (‘debiano for sboro contamente et secretamente’) and choose their representative. Those who did not accept the duty after being chosen would be obliged to pay a 50 ducats fee. For the emissary who came from the Republic of Ragusa an amount of 200 perperas was allocated and written off as traveling expenses, and for the one from Srebrenica an amount of 100 perperas including the costs of a month’s stay. They would bring gifts worth no more than 250 perperas for the despot in the name of the Republic. Sorkocevic was given permission to stay with Despot Durad up to two months and, if he succeeded, he was promised a reward of 500 perperas.436

As there was absolutely no way things could be resolved in their favor, the Republic of Ragusa approached Matko Talovac on November 14, 1437 and asked him to speak with the despot during their impending meeting on their behalf. After it had failed in this attempt as well, it turned to Hungarian king Albert with the same appeal in May 1438.437 They were forced, by frequent complaints made by their merchants, to take all these steps. One of them, made on February 20, 1438, is representative of all the others. Namely, Pirko Bolesavic ‘was complaining and crying’, that two despot’s men accompanied by citizens and adjuncts came to his house and tied him. He says that he protested in the following way: ‘Гωςподω, кωю иматɛ ςа мнωмɛ пракдɣ али крикинɣ, да мɛ кɛжɛтɛ Сɛрбли кɛзакωно? Акω ςам комɣ Що крнвһ, ׀єς мɣ гωςпωцтко божнɛ н дɣброкачкω’438 Despot’s men ignored this and treated him harshly as was the order for dealing with the disobedient ones. But, at the time, Despot Durad and his men were preoccupied with greater matters. After the death of King Sigismund (on December 9, 1437) Sultan Murat II launched his attack a year later against Hungary and Serbia as its ally. The attack resulted in the fall of the town of Smederevo in 1439, and shortly after that, all of Serbia. Almost the whole country of Despot Durad was under Turkish rule; and the only remaining part, that still bravely and persistently resisted Turkish force, was Novo Brdo; another town that was not under attack was the spared Zeta. Brought to an impasse, Despot Durad, due to him not being able get help from Hungary, went on a Venetian ship to Zeta, in order to try and organize a new attack from there. In those circumstances he welcomed any help that he could get. On that occasion the Republic of Ragusa did great honor to Despot Durad, and they even, as much as they were allowed to, did a lot of favors for the old despot, a ruler without a country and very grim outlooks for the future. Despot

435 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 334-335; Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv, Lett e Comm. Di Levante XII, f. pp. 6-8, 12-13.436 Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv; Rog. VI, pp. 34-35.437 Dipl. Rog., pp. 406-407, 418-419. J. R a d o n i c, Dubrovacka akta i povelje knjiga I, sv. I, p. 408.438 K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski, Spomenici XI, p.80.

154was in the Republic of Ragusa even when Novo Brdo was conquered (on June 27, 1441) and his two older sons were blinded. There from, not being able to achieve anything in Zeta, he went to Hungary and bow down before King Vladislav. At that time Srebrenica came under Turkish rule as did the rest of Serbia. Ragusan merchants in this town did not waste time to discuss duties with Turks and send an embassy to Porta in order to ask them to be considerate to them. They were able to get certain, we do not know what, benefits from the sultan while he was taking over the town of Smederevo. Bosnian king complained about this act to the Republic of Ragusa in the month of July 1440. The Republic realized that this affair was somewhat awkward. Turkish rule, they thought, was temporary and it would be very dangerous if Ragusan merchants were reproached later on for their disloyalty and cooperation with Turks. So, on August 10 and 18, they wrote to their subjects in Srebrenica with a touch of disdain, warning them of the murky times and the dangers of exposing themselves to them; resenting them for closing higher political deals without the consent of the Republic and, in the end, pointing out to them that by doing so they were making common cause with the Turks and it was difficult to have common interests with them.439 The citizens of Srebrenica decided to take this step in order to get certain benefits on the part of Turks that they were not given by Despot Durad. Getting these benefits was the Republic’s goal as well. Turkish customs’ officer carried on the tradition of Serbian administration in Srebrenica. Due to, Republic of Ragusa, in their instruction to their emissaries in Porta, Jakov Sorkocevic and Stjepan Benesic, ordered them: to thank the sultan for his good treatment of their merchants everywhere in his country, ‘excepto che in Strebreniza’, and to implore him to honor the treaty. In particular, they were to complain about the new customs’ officer in Srebrenica, certain Pintinin, who was ignoring concessions made by the sultan. And they wrote a letter to this same Pintinin after November 30, 1440, full of ‘sweet and nice words’, saying he should stop imposing new duties and take into account the rights that the Republic of Ragusa acquired earlier. However, this Turk, customs’ lessee, had a Ragusan for a partner to whom personal gain was more important than anything else. In Porta, the Republic of Ragusa was told that they themselves were responsible for being treated in such a way since they were the ones who were helping despot fight Turks. Because of this, even if the sultan had given some benefits to Srebrenica’s merchants in Smederevo, while they were conquering Serbia, Turkish authorities treated harshly all Ragusan merchants without exceptions. As a result, on April 18, 1441, the Republic of Ragusa put a ban on trade with Bosnia, Serbia and the land belonging to Stjepan Vukcic, a Turkish friend. The ban included Srebrenica as well.440

The arrival of Turks to Serbian and Bosnian respective lands did not end their bickering at each other, nor their wars. Troop concentration and harmony between Serbs and Bosnians could not be achieved, because the rulers of the countries were bickering at each other for supremacy and personal gain, but at the same time, there was on both sides a lot of stubbornness and mutual hatred. On more than one occasion the reason for this was the wealthy town of Srebrenica, which was conquered by Turks, who used the opportunity when they saw that Bosnians and Serbs were fighting each other, in 1439.

439 N. J o r g a, op. cit., 370; V. C o r o v i c, Historija Bosne I, p. 457.440 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 369-378; Dubrovacki drzavni arhiv; Rog. VII, f. 203.

155 The same year Despot Durad left the country, and King Tomas and Duke Stjepan were bickering at each other and waging a war against each other forgetting all about the wealthy town of Srebrenica. It was not until the middle of May 1444, that King Tomas conquered Srebrenica and the town of Srebrnik castrum of Srebrenica.441 Duke Stjepan and Despot Durad made peace around this time. On one hand, Stjepan respected the old Serbian despot who was extremely resilient, and on the other hand, he was guided by the fact that despot himself, because of Srebrenica, was the enemy of the Bosnian King Tomas. At the end of the month of November the same year Stjepan was preparing to go and make peace with Despot Durad and due to he turned to the Republic of Ragusa for advice and mediation.442 Using this bickering among Bosnian power-holders, Despot Durad won Srebrenica over once again. However, this time Durad did not hold on to Srebrenica for a long period of time since Bosnians took it away from him. In May 1446, King Tomas and Duke Stjepan reconciled. This reconciliation between Bosnian rulers soured the relations between the despot and Stjepan. The despot became very irritated with Bosnians for taking away Srebrenica from him and he was convinced that, now that these two reconciled, Srebrenica would stay under their rule. At that time the Republic of Ragusa feared that a war over Srebrenica might break out between Serbia and Bosnia, so they banned Stjepan from exporting saltpeter and sulfur (only partially), powder and ballista from their area; and on 12-15 November they banned the Bosnian king to export weapons and gather mercenaries.443

In the same manner as Serbian despots imposed new taxes on Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica so did the Bosnian rulers and great nobles. Specifically, on May 27, 1448 the Chancellor and Small Council wrote a reply to one of the letters addressed to them by Ragusan merchants from Srebrenica who complained about the new taxes, which were imposed on them by protovestiarios Restoje in the name of the Bosnian King Tomas. The Republic of Ragusa sent its merchants in Srebrenica a letter addressed to King Tomas, which two of them should hand and, on that occasion, complain about Rastoje to the king. A clear distinction between Srebrenica and castrum Strebrnik was made in this letter. The citizens of Ragusa used this castrum Srebrnik as a shelter in case of war. Under the order of the above mentioned protovestiarios Restoje, they were the ones who had to build houses in Srebrnik.444

Undoubtedly, Despot Durad was still feeling the barb and all his plans on this side with Srebrenica were compromised. However, the situation soon changed. Shortly

441 Compare M. D i n i c, op. cit., p. 185; V. C o r o v i c, Historija Bosne I, p. 471. On May 22, 1444, the Grand Council of Ragusa decided unanimously to reward the emissary of Bosnian King Tomas, who brought the news ‘de levatione castri Strebrnich de manibus Turcorum.’ – N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 402, comment; M. D i n i c, loc. cit. The same year King Tomas filed a lawsuit against Paskoje and Damjan, especially because the later one was responsible for the high price set on the bail out of the Bosnian squire Radoje Bubanic, who was captured by King Durad in the fight over Srebrenica. – N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 427-431.

442 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 407. This year the Republic of Ragusa asked Despot Durad to enable its mer-chants free export of silver and give them the ‘Srebrenica law’, as they did during the rule of Despot Stefan. – Monumenta sebica p. 437. On September 17, 1457, Despot Durad together with his son Lazar, restored the benefits the Republic of Ragusa had in Srebrenica. – Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knjiga I, 2, Beograd – Sr. Karlovci, 1934, pp. 30-32.

443 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 417-418.444 Op. cit., pp. 425-426; M. D i n i c, op. cit., p. 186.

156afterwards, Bosnians had a falling out and started fighting against each other. On one side there was King Tomas and on the other there were Duke Stjepan and Despot Durad who stood united. They were fighting over Srebrenica.445 On September 16, 1448, united troops of Despot Durad and Duke Stjepan conquered Srebrenica. The army of Despot Durad was led by his brother-in-law Toma Kantakuzen, who, on that occasion, got through all the way to Visegrad and conquered it.446 A month later, Ragusan merchants in Srebrenica received orders from the Republic of Ragusa to complain to Tomo about the violation of their privileges because they were given to them due to his intervention.447 It was not long before King Tomas, at the beginning of 1449, launched a sudden attack and won Srebrenica over, which was important to him because it was an enormous source of wealth. As a result, on March 1, 1449, again, present in Srebrenica we see the officers of the Bosnian king – ‘valosi del rè.448

Internal friction and wars among Bosnians themselves on the one side and between Serbs and Bosnians on the other, worn people out completely. Even King Tomas himself was tired of them. At the time Despot Durad was in good relations with Turks. As a result of his conflict with Hunjadi in 1448 and later on, the despot was forced to seek a greater deal of support from Porta in order not to face Hungarian revenge on his own. King Tomas realized that his hands were tied for as long as he did not make a deal with Despot Durad. King Tomas was also considering forming an alliance with the Republic of Ragusa and he started negotiations with the Republic of Ragusa. The Republic of Ragusa would benefit from an alliance with King Tomas, because in 1451 Duke Stjepan launched a war on the Republic of Ragusa. In turn, the Republic of Ragusa was also looking for a way to make peace between Bosnia and Serbia, which were at war at the time, and then King Tomas as an ally of the Republic of Ragusa would be free to turn against Duke Stjepan. The main contentious issue was the issue of Srebrenica. The Republic of Ragusa, on June 17, 1451, gave an instruction to its emissaries on the Bosnian court, Vlah Ranjin and Jakov Marin Gundulic, to ask, among other things, that castrum Srebrnik be placed in the custody of the Republic of Ragusa until the issue of Srebrenica is resolved, so that the Republic of Ragusa can ensure that the provisions of the treaty would be carried out. The emissaries were instructed to tell King Tomas that Despot Durad might fear the treaty between Bosnia and Serbia would not be honored and that he might ask for a dependable assurance in this respect.449 It was believed in the Republic of Ragusa that King Tomas, as a sign of good faith for the reconciliation, would be willing to give Despot Durad back the fortified town of Srebrnik and the wealthy town of Srebrenica. Moreover, there was also the need for King Tomas to make peace with Ban (Viceroy) Petar Talovac. The Republic of Ragusa authorized their emissaries to meet with King Tomas and give an attentive ear to his

445 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 419, 425-426.446 K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba II, Beograd, 1923, p. 152; N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 423, 426, 430-431.

According to Serbian Annals, the defeat of Bosnian troops was also recorded in Wallachian Annals as well: ‘Разɛн ɛωма кралѣ ɛωмаша коςаиςаго ‘. – J. B o g d a n, Letopisetul lui Azarie, Bucuresti, 1909, p. 75; Compare

Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stari srpski rodoslovni letopisi, Beograd – Sr. Karlovci, 1927, pp. 235-236. One of the sources places this event on September 6 that year. – Spomenik III, p. 134.

447 N. J o r g a, op. cit., p. 430.448 K. J i r e c e k, loc. cit.449 M. D i n i c, op. cit., pp. 186-187.

157wishes and demands, and then, after that, meet with Despot Durad and negotiate the terms of the treaty. At the same time the emissaries were to ask Despot Durad to use his influence with Porta to the advantage of the Republic of Ragusa.450 Mediation of the embassy towards the reconciliation was successful. King Tomas gave Despot Durad Srebrenica back by the end of July that year. Thus, Bosnia along with Hungary made peace with Despot Durad.451 Castrum Srebrnik, along with Srebrenica was given to Despot Durad – ‘lo castello de Strebernich esser dato in man del signor despot.’452

According to what has been said above, we see that Srebrenica had gone through a tumultuous and very difficult period during the rule of Despot Durad Brankovic (1427-1456).

V

For a period of time during the rule of D. Brankovic’ successor, Srebrenica was a part of the Serbian state. Thus, during the rule of Despot Lazar Brankovic in Srebrenica, Duke Milos was the town administrator.453 However, around that time, it occurred to Bosnian King Tomas to marry his son Stepan to a princess from the Brankovic family, the oldest daughter of Lazar Brankovic, who at the time could not have been more than 12 years old. This idea was driven by political and financial plans of a king who wanted to resolve his financial and political issues through his son’s marriage; and according to this plan one day Bosnia would be united with other parts under the rule of the Serbian dynasty of the Brankovic family, because they were left without male issue on Lazar’s side. In that way all borderline conflicts between these two countries would end. Bosnia would benefit in strength, wealth and prestige; and the two important South Slavic areas would stand united in those crucial days of alien invasion and conquest. To this end Tomas started his heralding to L. Brankovic.454 King Tomas put it in the following way: his son Stefan marries Lazar’s daughter and, at first, receives as dowry the area of Srebrenica, which has always been a matter of dispute and the reason why many bloody wars were waged. As early as April 1458, the issue was seriously discussed.455 But even before the marriage, which was contracted on April 1, 1459, Bosnians conquered Srebrenica as early as February 22 the same year along with other eleven neighboring towns.456 King Tomas wanted to take over these areas from the Deprived-of-a-Leader Serbia that Bosnia was entitled to for many a day now. These events resulted in commotion in the Republic of Ragusa. The Republic of Ragusa was worried about their merchants in Srebrenica, and so, during April the same year, sent letters to all sides: the sultan, the duke and the Hungarian king. The Republic of

450 N. J o r g a, op. cit., pp. 448-449.451 Op. cit., pp. 451-454; V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 496.452 K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba IV, p. 91; M. D i n i c, op. cit., p. 188. Under the year 1455, it is men-

tioned in the Annals that Dmitar Radojevic lost Petar Kovacevic in the battle of Srebrenica. – Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi no. 306, 699, 1180.

453 K. J i r e c e k, Srpski spomenici, p.57.454 L. T a l l ó c z y, Studien zur Gescichte Bosniens und Serbiens, p. 91 and on.; J. R a d o n i c, Spora-

zum u Tati 1426 i srpsko-ugarski odnosi od XIII-XIV veka, Glas CLXXXVIII, p. 225.455 V. M a k u s e v, Istorijski spomenici Juznih Slovena i okolnih naroda II, Beograd, 1882, p. 115.456 Op. cit., pp. 204-205.

158Ragusa was worried because they were not in good relations with King Tomas at the time. After he conquered Srebrenica, King Tomas has given up the idea of launching an attack against Turks. Moreover, he even sent them tribute-money.457 Based on this, it can be concluded that king was not interested in protecting the freedom of his people from Turkish invasion, but was rather interested in personal gain of the court’s treasury. The source was over-stocked; the court’s treasury received enormous proceeds of silver ore from Srebrenica and king’s interest for war against Turks waned. After that, in 1462, Srebrenica was conquered by Turks.458

On December 14, 1463 in the town of Jajce King Matija issued a deed of land property in Srebrenica and the surrounding area of Srebrenica to successors of a Ragusan, Dabiziv Latinica, who was exiled by Turks.459 But, at that time, Srebrenica was in Turkish hands. Those were the times when this area was run by emins (Ottoman tax-collectors) Murat, Dogan, Musa and Balaban.460 Around this time, Hungarians were preparing the field for the conquest of Srebrenica. Turkish governor in Bosnia, Muhamed-pasha Minetovic, having a small army on his disposal, was taking measures to prevent Hungarians from assembling in the area which they could use to cut off Turkish communication with central Bosnia. He placed great deal of importance on the fortified town of Zvornik. For this reason he sent there a skilled and very competent warrior, Skender Mihailovic, a turned Turk, whom he gave only 500 soldiers and the resources to fortify the town well. Hungarian army, together with King Matija, led by I. Zapolja was advancing through the valley of the River Drina. Contrary to expectation, in a bold and swift impact, Zapolja reached and pillaged Srebrenica. On this occasion, Hungarian troops conquered the entire area of Srebrenica.461 It was then that Hungary introduced so called gubernators (governors) in Bosnia. But by 1465, they were replaced by Bosnian-Croatian-Dalmatian bans (viceroys). They were warriors, mainly Hungarians by nationality and they were rotated quite often. Their duty was to protect their banates from Turks and carry out economical exploitation of Bosnian land in favor of Hungary. Especially well-prepared for defense were the banates of Jajce and Srebrenica, which were in contact with Sabac and Belgrade, since they represented the farthest points of Hungarian invasion in the Balkans and as such they were to serve as a defensive wall for the protection of gates of Hungarian Pest against Turkish invasion. Yet, Srebrenica could not be held by Hungarians for a long time. Naturally, Turks were extremely interested in such an important and abundant area, which they soon took over from Hungarians. After that, as we learn from a Sultan Mehmed II’s report, in which he informs the Republic of Ragusa on May 6, 1468 that the sultan’s emin, Sule, consigned ‘мέςτɑ ςρëƄьнɑ’ and ‘Хɑςобѣ’ in Srebrenica to a Ragusan, Paskoje Romed’s care, and that he, in turn, was behind 3 000 ducats with his rental fee.462 But, the same year, following this event, when Hungarians conquered the town 457 Compare V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 527.458 K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba IV, p. 92.459 G e l c i c h – T h a l l ó c z y, Diplomatarium pp. 620-622.460 G l i s a E l e z o v i c, Turski spomenici I, I. Zbornik za istocnjacku istoriju i knjizevnu gradu ser. I,

knjiga I, ed. Srpska akademija nauka, Beograd, 1940, pp. 68-70. C. J i r e c e k, Staat Gesellschaft IV/5. 461 Compare V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 572.462 C. T r u h e l k a, Tursko-slovjenski spomenici dubrovacke arhive. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja

XXIII (1911), p. 28. Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knjiga II, 2, pp. 245-246.

159of Sabac, Hungarian king sent off from Sabac a young Serbian despot, Vuk Brankovic (Zmaj Ognjeni Vuk – Vuk the Fiery Dragon), with an army to force their way into Srebrenica and ravage the area. This event was recorded in the Annals under the year 1476.463 This had nothing to do with territorial conquest or the delivering of people from Turkish servitude, but it was rather a type of a martial feat aiming at mayhem, surprise attack and plunder. V. Brankovic chose 150 warriors, dressed them in Turkish uniforms, and set out with them by night, furtively, moving through woods, to attack Turks by surprise. This martial detachment accompanied by young Brankovic, invaded Srebrenica by day and right at the time panadur (fair) was held in town in order to cause as much mayhem and confusion as possible. Turks were terribly appalled by this event. The attack resulted in the yielding of big spoils: five cargos of silver, 127 000 aspras along with various other objects. From there the detachment then fought their way to Kuslati, which they raided as well, and went back via Zvornik. The despot was shot in the leg there and he discontinued further fighting. On the way home, the detachment continued to pillage, burn and wreak havoc.464 Shortly afterwards, Hungarians launched a new attack on the Srebrenica region and took it over from Turks. For a long period of time afterwards, Srebrenica was out of Turkish control. In 1482, when Novi, as the last free town of the old Bosnian state, was conquered, the whole country, with the exception of two to three smaller towns at the mouth of the River Neretva, came under Turkish control, respective regions of Jajce and Srebrenica did not get involved. But then again, they were no longer under the rule of respective Bosnian and Serbian rulers, who were constantly bickering and waging wars, especially over Srebrenica, now they were under the rule of Hungarian rulers, who were holding on to these regions for the purposes of exploitation and use of these as bastions for the security of Pest.

VI

Experts studied closely the differences between Roman and old Bosnian mining industry in Srebrenica.465 It was established that there were no diagonal tunnels in Roman mining pits. The drilling was done in the dimensions which enabled the carts to come in and bring out the stockyard charges. All the holes were connected by roads that led to present-day Gradina. Wherever there was a need an underpinning was made, and here and there a spanning with a bridge was done, and all tunnels were made with precision and care. Subsequent Bosnian work shows certain progress in the sense that they also made diagonal tunnels, but what is surprising is the fact that everything was done in small scale and noticeable frugality. It is virtually impossible to walk through these diagonal tunnels standing straight and some of the narrow passages are almost impossible to squeeze through. Smelting furnaces were of the most primitive sort, and the building material used was the closest accessible. They did not use brick or dressed stone.

463 Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi no. 771 and 1225.464 T h a l l ó c z y – A l d a s y, Monumenta Hungariae historica XXXIII, pp. 265-268; Stari srpski

rodoslovi i letopisi, loc. cit.465 L. P o g a t s c h n i g, loc. cit.

160 The items acquired through excavations were scarce – few pieces of earthenware, wooden nails and spikes were all that was recovered from the mediaeval mining pits in Srebrenica. This leads us to conclude that the workers lived in poverty. The existence of many haldas seems to indicate that there was no central shop, but that the miners were working in batches in separate pits and that they melted ore where it suited them best.466

VII

Throughout the history of its development Srebrenica had a diversified ethnical structure. Judging by a Greek epitaph found in Biljaca near Srebrenica and a seal imprinted on one pot of clay found in Gradina itself near Srebrenica, as it was mentioned in the first chapter of this paper, inhabitants of Greek origin also lived in this area. Then, the most important ethnical element in early mediaeval period was represented by the Romans. Mining was highly developed during Roman rule in Srebrenica. From the arrival of the South Slavs at the Balkans, we can assume that Srebrenica, as a rich mining region, was inhabited very early on by South Slavic inhabitants. According to the afore-mentioned historical facts it can be said that Srebrenica was mainly inhabited by Bosnians, Ragusans, the Saxons and partly by Serbians. In addition, very early on we have the arrival of Hungarians as conquerors and after that Turks as well. Economical wealth of the mining town of Srebrenica attracted these different ethnical elements, especially prominent among them being the community of the Republic of Ragusa, which was the main lessee of the mines,467 and Saxon miners, who were the experts for mining business. Traces of the Saxons are present even today in the names such as Saski potok near Srebrenica.468

We are familiar with the names of many of the citizens of Srebrenica in the mediaeval period. I have no intention of mentioning all of them and I am going to mention instead only the following. As it was mentioned in the second chapter of this paper, in the period 1390-1392 several citizens of Srebrenica became naturalized citizens of the Republic of Ragusa such as: Rajko Milkovic, Novak Vukojevic, Hrelja Hrvatovic, and Zivko Ivanovic – Ligatica.469 Generally speaking, most families in Srebrenica were descendants of the Latinica family from the Republic of Ragusa. The first representative of this family was Dabizav Dobretic dictus Latinica, who is mentioned in 1403. His son Martol (Martolus) was the magistrate in Srebrenica in 1423, 1427 and 1435. This family had hereditary estates (bona hereditaria) in Srebrenica itself and its surroundings (mountains, mines, smelters, mills and villages); but they were exiled by Turks.470 In 1433, a certain Branko Sancic, as one of the citizens of Srebrenica is mentioned.471 After him, in 1438, as the citizens of Srebrenica the following are mentioned: Paoko

466 Op. cit., p. 152 ff.; Rücker, Blei- u. Silberbergbau bei Srebrenica, p. 21 ff; K a t z e r, Geologija Bosne, p. 450.

467 Compare C. J i r e c e k, Die Handelsstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien, p. 50 ff.468 K. J i r e c e k, Istorija Srba III, p. 109.469 Mon. Rog. IV, pp. 150-152; in V. C o r o v i c, op. cit., p. 335, the transcript of certain names of the

citizens of Srebrenica is wrong.470 K. J i r e c e k, op. cit. IV, p. 143. 471 K. J i r ec e k, op. cit., p. 162.

161Bratkovic, Radoe Miokovic called Paklic, Benko Bratosalic, Niksa Raguzan, Antoe Sorkocevic, Stipan Vukovic, Petko Utisenovic, and Sergije Sirgulovic.472 In 1447, as citizens of Srebrenica the following are mentioned: magistrate Mikleus, magistrate Paoko Stipasinovic, Maroje Nikulinovic Gundulic, Tvrdislav Likodric, Godur Dobrasin Danicic, Stipan, the son of Tvrdislav Likodric, Todor Dobrasinovic, Bozidar Milosevic, as servant of Andrija Krivosica, Marno Cidelovak, Stepan Bozinovic, as servant of magistrate Zuho (Duro); as Ragusan nobles in Srebrenica the following are mentioned: Stipko Marguskovic, Andrija Krivosic, Niksa Zuhovic.473 In 1457, the following citizens of Srebrenica are mentioned: duke Milos, magistrate (comes) Nikola Radulinovic, a Ragusan noble Zuho (Durde), Dragojevic Gucetic;474 and as Srebrenica’s nobles the following are mentioned: Marin Radosalic, Dobrusko and Stepan Brankovic, magistrate Martolica Grbicic.475

In addition to the afore-mentioned South Slavic ethnical groups that were present in Srebrenica in the mediaeval period, there were also Albanians from time to time. It can be concluded by the fact that there are traces of Albanian words along the River Drina all the way to Srebrenica, which survived to present day in the so called ‘banalacki’ secret speech. The Albanians came to this area as mercenaries and as graziers, moving with their herds to winter grazing lands.476 Besides this, there were also economical and cultural ties. In the mediaeval period the citizens of Srebrenica pursued various occupations. One could find there officers, miners, workers, merchants, various craftsmen, professional warriors; in addition there were also priests and nobles of all sorts (petty and high nobles, bans (viceroys), dukes, commanders-in-chief). Among others, in 1438, in Srebrenica the following are mentioned: Radovan and Veseoko, as scroll merchants, Petar, as goldsmith and Radoje, as candlemaker.477

It is worth mentioning that in one of Constantine the Philosopher’s hagiography manuscripts of Despot Stefan Lazarevic it is said that all Bosnians in Srebrenica were Bogomiles. The hagiography reads: ‘ςн жɛ кһςн ɛрɛςи богомилһςкһ׀ɛ ςоуть’.478

Among churches in the mediaeval Srebrenica the best known was the Franciscan Church during the rule of Despot Stefan Lazarevic (1412-1427)479 whose priests enjoyed high reputation.480

472 Id., Spomenici srpski, Spomenik XI, p. 86.473 Op. cit., p. 86, 92; Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knjiga I, 2, p. 123474 K. J i r e c e k, op. cit., pp. 87-88.475 Loc. cit.476 V. C o r o v i c, Napomene o albanskim tragovima. Arhiv za albansku starinu, jezik i etnologiju, ed. H. B a r i c, I, 1-2, Beograd, 1923, pp. 202-205.477 K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski, p. 80.478 V. J a g i c, Ein neu entdeckter urkundlicher Beitrag zur Erklärung des Bosnischen Patarenentums.

Archiv für slav. Phil. XXXIII (1912), p. 586; compare B. H. Г р и г о р о в и ч ъ, О Сербiи Казань, 1859, p. 52.

479 K. J i r e c e k, op. cit., p. 75.480 Id., Istorija Srba III, p. 98. We do not know what episcopacy Srebrenica belonged to when it was

under the rule of Bosnian rulers and when it was held by Serbian despots. Judging by the letters that the Republic of Ragusa sent to the Serbian metropolitan Isidor, it appears that Srebrenica, when it was held by Serbian despots, belonged to the episcopacy of Belgrade. – Cons. Rog. Nov. 30, 1415; Lettere Dec 1415 and Feb 1416. [Lettere e Commissioni di Levente 1411-1416].

162 In the mediaeval period Srebrenica had its own town law. This is completely understandable because this town was an important mining and trade centre. The information about this Srebrenica’s Law is found in a court hearing dated November 10, 1457 that was held in Srebrenica due to a theft. The ruling of this hearing states that the two culprits should swear an oath for the purposes of justification and if they did not do it ‘да ςɣ крнкн по законɣ мѣςта, що нХь законһ покажɛ.’481 In addition, in the mediaeval period Srebrenica, as a mining town, even before the mentioning of the local law in 1424, had certain regulations pertaining to privileges as regards customs duties. Thus, in an act which was passed the same year it was said that the cloths that were imported to Srebrenica were duty free.482 This phenomenon in Srebrenica can be seen later on during Turkish rule. Namely, under Article 132 of the Saxon Law no citizen of Sirenica (Srebrenica) is exempt of paying baj (customs duty) when they import eating and drinking utensils and objects for mining purposes.483 This mining community in Srebrenica had its own governments and its own judges (burghers); there was ‘curia purgarorum’484. Then there was also the Court of the Republic of Ragusa, which dealt with the issues pertaining to the Ragusan citizens.485 Particularly interesting is the case 481 K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski, p. 88. Lj. S t o j a n o v i c, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knjiga II,

2, pp. 431-433.482 K. J i r e c e k, Spomenici srpski p. 75. In a letter dating from 1445 addressed to Despot Durad, the

Republic of Ragusa mentions ‘Srebrenica’s Law’, the same they had one during the rule of despot Stefan. – Monumenta serbica, p. 437.

483 V l a d i s l a v S k a r i c, Staro rudarsko pravo i tehnika u Srbiji i Bosni, Posebna izdanja Srpske akademije nauka, knjiga CXXVII, Beograd, 1939, p. 89. There is yet another especially interesting Turkish Law on customs duties in Srebrenica, from the Modern Age, which provides a lot of informa-tion about the economic history of Srebrenica and the neighboring area of that time. This Law rather well documents the economic situation and the life of people in Srebrenica and the neighboring area. – Op. cit., pp. 90-91. A well-known Turkish geographer from the 17th century, Evliya Celebi, provides important information about Srebrenica at that time. Evlija says: ‘This place was named after Sre-brenica mountains, where the silver pits are, in Bulgarian and Serbian language ‘Srebrenika’’. About the town of silver, Evliya writes: ‘Town is located at the top of the church rocks, and built of stone in five angles and it is a beautiful town. The town has a dizdar with fity nefers , and it has a special tower for dzebhanu. Since it is quite small it does not have a bazaar nor enough room for a market-place. When sultan Fatih Mehmed conquered Bosnia, he also conquered this town and devastated it in the process and Bajazid II rebuilt it.

In the hills and valleys there are only eight hundred beautiful houses, hovels and rising buildings, which all have a shingled roof.

This town has six neighborhoods and six mosques. The first, Bajazid-velina mosque is built in the old style with stone minaret and ceremit roof. There is a Moslem monastery, three Moslem primary schools and a rather small inn and seventy craftsman stores, as well as a small public bathroom. There is no domed market building nor any other important building since the town is not located on any ma-jor crossroad. A rather awkward small white river, which joins the River Drina, flows through town. They call this river ‘silver water’ since it springs from silver pits, but it has a bad reputation because all the local people who drink this water usually develop goiter. The town is inhabited by Bosniacs, Serbs and Bulgarians and they are in good relations.’ – S. S e j f u d i n K e m u r a, Iz Sejahatname Evlije Celebije, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XX, pp. 183-184. I was not able to find П. А. С ь ιр к у, Описаніе турецкои имперіи..., 1890, and the story of Srebrenica on p. 149; C.V. M i k o l j i, Rudarstvo u Bosni u srednjem vijeku, Povijest Bosne i Hercegovine I, Sarajevo, 1942, p. 653 ff.

484 C. J i r e c e k, Das Gesetzbuch des serbischen Caren Stephan Dusan, Arch. für slov. Phil., XXII (1900), p. 187, 198-199; id., Bedeutung von Ragusa inn der Handelsgeschichte des Mittelalters, p. 72, comment 66.

485 Mon. Rag. IV, pp. 150-151; Zakonski spomenici pp. 164-165.

163of a jury from 1457 where it can be seen that the hearing is held at the crime scene as well as the fact that a target date for the hearing is set in advance.486

How developed merchant town and how important mining town Srebrenica was in the mediaeval period is best seen in the fact that ‘panadurs’ (fairs) were held in Srebrenica and its surrounding area. Thus, the Ragusan archive books from 1427 mention a panadur in the area of Srebrenica. Namely, during an investigation conducted by Ragusan consol and his judges in Srebrenica on February 5 this same year, into the missing 38 pounds of silver that involved father Marin, Srebrenica’s guardian, and Domko, known as Nikola, the afore-mentioned Domko said: ‘andaro a pangur’, so he secretly took ‘bisaze de pelle nigre’, which belonged to someone else,487 from the monastery’s sacristy. After this one, there was a panadur held in Srebrenica at the time when Zmaj Ognjeni Vuk (Vuk the Fiery Dragon) invaded the town.488

The best known silver ore mine in the mediaeval period in the entire Bosnia was Srebrenica. In addition to silver, Srebrenica also had lead.489 The abundance in silver ore opened a possibility for minting coins. We know this because a certain Radosav Sancic (Zancich), in 1431, together with a Serbian Duke Bogdan and a few Ragusans, was minting silver coins with the huge admixture of copper. This resulted in a complaint made by the Republic of Ragusa to Despot D. Brankovic.490 In addition, Serbian despots were minting their own money in Srebrenica quite often.491 But then, Despot D. Brankovic himself had a 30 000 ducats income per year from Srebrenica.492

Throughout the mediaeval period Srebrenica was a rich and well-known mining town. It was exploited first by the Romans, then by Bosnians, Serbians and Ragusans. It was used by the Saxons as well. It was ravaged, plundered and exploited by foreign conquerors, namely Hungarians and Turks. Due to its economic wealth, for centuries Srebrenica attracted all sorts of conquerors, and caused internal and local friction and bloodshed. As a consequence, the ethnic element in Srebrenica, for centuries, was exposed to all kinds of suffering and troubles, and exploited by the respective Bosnian and Serbian rulers, foreign conquerors and the profit of the Republic of Ragusa. As a result, Srebrenica, once called Argentaria, by the end of the mediaeval period was visibly depleted only to be completely depleted during Turkish rule in the new era, and later on to become completely neglected.

493

486 K. J i r e c e k, op. cit., pp. 87-88.487 K. J i r i c e k, Istorija Srba III, p. 226, comment 7.488 T h a l l ó c z y – A l d a s y, Monum. Hung. hist., loc. cit.489 Compare K. J i r e c e k, op. cit., p. 207. When Srebrenica was under the rule of the Bosnian King

Tomas, he had same proceeds per year from Srebrenica. – T h a l l ó c z y, Studien, p. 96.490 K. J i r e c e k, op. cit., p. 162.491 Op. cit. IV, p. 208. 492 E. F e r m e n d z i n, Acta Bosnae, p. 223.493 Татомир Вукановић, Сребреница у среднјем веку, Гласник државног музеја у Сарајеву, нова

серија 1946., друштвене науке, свеска 1., 51-80

DOCUMENTS

167

Kemal NURKIC, M.Sc.

SREBRENICA REGISTERS IN THE TUZLA CANTON ARCHIVES AS HISTORICAL SOUCES

FOR THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP

Defter or tefter [Register] is the cadastral tax register which was very neatly kept by the Ottoman Empire, almost from the very beginning. Defters contain data on villages, households, number of household heads (adult males and widowers), as well as ethnic groups in the area of the Empire.

All the state records of the Ottoman administration and accounting, all the proceedings and protocols, as well as all the individual documents which have characteristics of some type of inventory, list or statement of accounts are called defters.

Due to a wide meaning of the word defter, various defters as types of Ottoman registers were given a closer description by the addition of other words which denoted their type and character. Ottoman cadastral registers were called tapu tahrir defterleri (registry). They were the result of work of special government commissions who, on the spot, took down the sources of state revenues for the purposes of property taxation. The Commission composed of emin – commissioner and khatib – scribe further defined the revenue sharing among Ottoman feudal lords.

Records of the tapu tahrir deftera ended in the early 18th century, and the Ottoman administration adapted to the new circumstances and turned to offices after the European model. Ottoman defters are undoubtedly the most important for the area of the Balkans in the Ottoman period. They represent the basic source of information for the research of key historical issues such as demographic trends, economic activities, structure of population, all that pertains to socio-economic, legal and political, but also cultural history of BH.

As regards the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Ottoman historiography, it met a remarkable success after the Second World War. Significant number of these results came precisely because of the study of the registry defters. Most of these defters date back from the 15th and 16th centuries, and they served as one of the fundamental sources for the study of important historical issues.

The analysis of the defters in different years provides an even more complete account of the past of a certain region, its population, economy, institutions, economic circumstances, trade and trade ethics, agrarian relations and their evolution, waqf as a legal subject but also the political circumstances in the Ottoman Empire itself.

Defters contain individual mulk estates, estates that belong to the entire community equally, and after that the area of land was registered. Among real property the following were mentioned: houses, cottages, residences, barn, granary, mill, curing

168plunt, log watch-towers, mosques, maktabs, churches, synagogues, cemeteries, schools, shops, storehouses, bars, mejhanes [inns], fields, bramble patches, forests, gardens, flower-gardens etc. Register analysis enables us to reconstruct the size of the settlement because the real property was entered in the register according to the mahalas and streets that they were located in, and for the person holding the right of possession, the current place of residence is stated. Data on the number of shops, storehouses, bars et al, give us an account of the urban and rural economy.

In the Tuzla Canton Archives, there are five cadastral registers dating back from the 19th century. The aim of this paper is to point to the existence of these defters, and in a few words, say something about them and point to their importance as regards the historical science. We believe that these defters were the result of a firman [decree] of 1867. The firman was issued as part of the efforts of the Ottoman central authorities to conduct classification and registration of lands and taxes, after the fall of the timar system, in accordance with the Land Law adopted in 1858.494 Defters found their way into the Tuzla Canton Archives in A4 format copies, and they collectively contain about 700 pages and one of the defters has a printed form with all the headings of columns where data were entered. Before they arrived at the Archives, the defters were located in the Directorate of the Cadastral Archives in Istanbul. The defters were numbered in the following order:1. Srebrenica qazai – no. 5933, comprises 204 pages,2. Srebrenica qazai – no. 5934, comprises 197 pages,3. Srebrenica qazai – no. 5935, comprises 206 pages,4. Srebrenica qazai – no. 5938, comprises 93 pages.

The first three defters were made in 1284 A.H. or 1867, which means that immediately after the passing of the Law on land registration in 1867, the law was enacted in the area of Srebrenica. These defters do not have column headings and thus the landowners were listed from top to bottom where the respective names of the owner and his father were stated. What is interesting about these defters is the fact that the scribe accurately lists the names of all the persons whose land borders with the plot in question.

The writing of the defter no. 5938, which can be found in the Tuzla Canton Archives, started in 1292 A.H. or 1875. This defter has a following form:

The first column heading contains general numeration which continues through the entire defter. Next column heading contains the name of the mahala. The third heading contains the names of the locations, that is the names of the people whose property borders with the entered property. The fourth and fifth headings contain the land area of the property dönüm ve sair, keyl ve sair. The following heading contains the type of property that was the subject of the register. Next heading contains the name of the owner, that is the enjoyer of the right of possession. The following heading contains the estimated value of the property. The heading tarih-i sened contains the date of the drawing up of the document. The heading vuqu’at is the heading that contains changes, events. This heading is related to the transfer of property that is the right of possession.

Registration district of the defter in question are mostly villages in the area of the present-day municipality of Srebrenica. Here are some of them:

494 Nedim Zahirovic , Katastarski defteri u Arhivu Tuzlanskog Kantona s kraja osmanske uprave u Bosni, Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke u Sarajevu, KNJIGA XXV-XXVI, pp. 249-257.

169a) Village of Daljegosta, register of fields with the names of their owners. In most

cases the names of the owners without the names of their fathers were entered. For example, Mustafa, son of Mehmed, has two fields with a total area of 5 dunums which border with Mula Mehmed, Hasan and Omer. The second field borders with Mehmed, Hasan, Omer and the public road.

b) Village of Slatina, register of fields with the names of the owners. Selim, Bajram and Mustafa own most of the fields with a total area of about 40 dunums. Also, we see women as rightful owners and thus in the village of Slatina, Ajsa, daughter of Mehmed, was registered as the owner of two fields with a total area of 6 dunums.

c) Village of Osmaca, register of fields with names. Ibrahim, Mehmed, Osman, Hatidza, Merjema and Hanifa, children of Omer, have most of the fields with a total area of 80 dunums. Bego and Salih, children of Omer, enjoy the property over 16 plots of land with a total area of 55 dunums.

d) Village of Suceska, register of fields with names. Selim, son of Abdurahman, has seven fields with a total area of 16 dunums. Here we see that the fields of Mustafa, Ismail, Alija and Ibrahim, children of Husejn, border in part with the mosque in the above-mentioned village. Fatima, daughter of Ibrahim, owns ten plots of land with the a total area of 73 dunums.

e) Village of Krusev Dol, Mehmed and Selim, children of Murat, own ten plots of land.

f) Village of Rakovac, Salih, son of Mustafa Hodzic from the village of Suha, owns most of the plots of land in the village of Rakovac. Ibrahim, son of Mustafa, owns five plots with a total area of 19 dunums. Risto and Marko own five plots with a total area of 19 dunums.

g) Village of Peciste, Mustafa, son of hajji Ahmed, owns five plots with a total area of 12 dunums. One plot with an area of 2 dunums borders with Nuhagic, Mezarluk [Graveyard] and public road. Ismail, son of Salih, owns one plot with an area of six dunums and borders with, along two sides with Mustafa, and Ibrahim-aga and the forest.

h) Village of Besirovici, Hava, daughter of Ahmed, owns seven plots. Sinan, son of Ahmed, owns seven plots. Hatidza, daughter of Ahmed, owns one plot. Osman and Alija, children of Bego, together own six plots.

i) Village of Glogova, Mehmed, Salko, Husejn, Hamza, Hanifa and Hatidza, own 22 plots with a total area of 104 dunums. In this defter, about 3600 plots with the names of the owners were registered. We

have to point out that there are only few instances where non-Muslims are mentioned as property owners.

Based on what was mentioned above, we can say that defters represent very important historical sources for the study of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Ottoman rule. Namely, the issues of legal, economic and any other status of the population in this area cannot be researched or understood without the insight into the data provided in the defters.In the end, we will conclude that the general public still does not have access to numerous facts available in Ottoman source materials, either due to the problem of interpretation and translation of these materials, or the limited possibilities of their publication.

170

Appendices

171

173

JUDGEMENT FOR GENOCIDE IN RADISLAV KRSTIC CASE

RADISLAV KRSTIĆ (IT-98-33) - “SREBRENICA-DRINA CORPS”

- Chief-of-Staff/Deputy Commander of the Drina Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS);

- Appointed Commander of the Drina Corps on 13 July 1995.

Born 15 February 1948 in Vlasenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Indictment Initial: 2 November 1998; redacted: 7 December 1998; amended: 22November 1999

Arrested 2 December 1998, by the multinational Stabilisation Force (SFOR)

Transferred to ICTY 3 December 1998

Initial and furtherappearances

7 December 1998, pleaded not guilty to all charges; 25 November 1999, pleaded not guilty to all charges

Trial Chamber judgement 2 August 2001, sentenced to 46 years’ imprisonment

Appeals Chamber judgement 19 April 2004, sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment

Guilty of:

- Aiding and abetting genocide;- aiding and abetting murder (violation of the laws or customs of war);-aiding and abetting extermination (Crime against humanity); committed during the period 13. – 19 July 1995.;- for murder (violations of laws and customs of war) and- persecutions (crimes against humanity) committed during the period 13. – 19 July 1995. in Potocari

Serving sentence

20 December 2004, transferred to the United Kingdom to serve theremainder of his sentence; credit was given for time served since 3December 1998.; 15.December 2011. godine because “security

reasons”, returned to ICTY

174UNITED NATIONS

International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons

Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991

Case Nr.: IT-98-33-A

Date: 19. april 2004

Original: engleski

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before: Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen Judge Mehmet Güney Judge Wolfgang Schomburg

Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis

Judgement: 19 April 2004

PROSECUTORv.

RADISLAV KRSTIĆ______________________________________________________________

JUDGEMENT_______________________________________________________________

Counsel for the Prosecution:

Mr. Norman FarrellMr. Mathias MarcussenMs. Magda KaragiannakisMr. Xavier TracolMr. Dan MoylanCounsel for the Defendant:Mr. Nenad PetrušićMr. Norman Sepenuk

175I. Introduction

1. The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 is seized of two appeals from the written Judgment rendered by the Trial Chamber on 2 August 2001 in the case of Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT- 98-33-T (“Trial Judgment”). Having considered the written and oral submissions of the Prosecution and the Defense, the Appeals Chamber hereby renders its Judgment.2. Srebrenica is located in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. It gave its name to a United Nations so-called safe area, which was intended as an enclave of safety set up to protect its civilian population from the surrounding war. Since July 1995, however, Srebrenica has also lent its name to an event the horrors of which form the background to this case. The depravity, brutality and cruelty with which the Bosnian Serb Army (“VRS”) treated the innocent inhabitants of the safe area are now well known and documented.495 Bosnian women, children and elderly were removed from the enclave,496 and between 7,000 – 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were systematically murdered.497

3. Srebrenica is located in the area for which the Drina Corps of the VRS was responsible. Radislav Krstić was a General-Major in the VRS and Commander of the Drina Corps at the time the crimes at issue were committed. For his involvement in these events, the Trial Chamber found Radislav Krstić guilty of genocide; persecution through murders, cruel and inhumane treatment, terrorizing the civilian population, forcible transfer and destruction of personal property; and murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. Radislav Krstić was sentenced to forty-six years of imprisonment.4. For ease of reference, two annexes are appended to this Judgement. Annex A contains a Procedural Background, detailing the progress of this appeal. Annex B contains a Glossary of Terms, which provides references to and definitions of citations and terms used in this Judgement.

I. The trial chamber’s finding that genocide occurred in Srebrenica

5. The Defence appeals Radislav Krstić’s conviction for genocide committed against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The Defence argues that the Trial Chamber both misconstrued the legal definition of genocide and erred in applying the definition to the circumstances of this case.498 With respect to the legal challenge, the Defence’s argument is two-fold. First, Krstić contends that the Trial Chamber’s definition of the

495 Trial Judgement, paras. 6 et seq: “The Take-over of Srebrenica and its Aftermath.”496 Ibid., para. 52.497 Ibid., para. 84.498 The latter challenge is examined in Part III of this Judgement, which considers whether the Trial

Chamber was correct to find that the facts of this case supported the charge of genocide.

176part of the national group he was found to have intended to destroy was unacceptably narrow. Second, the Defence argues that the Trial Chamber erroneously enlarged the term “destroy” in the prohibition of genocide to include the geographical displacement of a community.

A. The Definition of the Part of the Group

6. Article 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, like the Genocide Convention,499 covers certain acts done with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The Indictment in this case alleged, with respect to the count of genocide, that Radislav Krstić “intend[ed] to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim people as a national, ethnical, or religious group.”500 The targeted group identified in the Indictment, and accepted by the Trial Chamber, was that of the Bosnian Muslims.501 The Trial Chamber determined that the Bosnian Muslims were a specific, distinct national group, and therefore covered by Article 4.502 This conclusion is not challenged in this appeal.503

7. As is evident from the Indictment, Krstić was not alleged to have intended to destroy the entire national group of Bosnian Muslims, but only a part of that group. The first question presented in this appeal is whether, in finding that Radislav Krstić had genocidal intent, the Trial Chamber defined the relevant part of the Bosnian Muslim group in a way which comports with the requirements of Article 4 and of the Genocide Convention.8. It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisić, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”504 The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence

499 Article II of the Genocide Convention.500 Indictment, para. 21.501 See Trial Judgement, para. 558 (“the indictment in this case defined the targeted group as the Bosnian

Muslims”).502 Ibid., paras. 559 - 560.503 See Defence Appeal Brief, paras. 28, 38.504 Jelisić Trial Judgment, para. 82 (citing Report of the International Law Commission on the Work

of its Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May – 26 July 1996, G.A.O.R., 51st session, Supp. No. 10 (A/51/10) (1996), p. 89; Nehemiah Robinson, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960) (1st ed. 1949), p. 63; Genocide Convention, Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 18 July 1981), p. 22). The Jelisić Trial Judgment was reversed in part by the Appeals Chamber on other grounds. See Jelisić Appeal Judgment, para. 72. The Trial Chamber’s definition of what constitutes an appropriate part of the group protected by the Genocide Convention was not challenged.

177of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”505 As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.506

[…]15. In this case, having identified the protected group as the national group of Bosnian Muslims, the Trial Chamber concluded that the part the VRS Main Staff and Radislav Krstić targeted was the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia.507 This conclusion comports with the guidelines outlined above. The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people.508

This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region.509 Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, the importance of the Muslim community of Srebrenica is not captured solely by its size.510 As the Trial Chamber explained, Srebrenica (and the surrounding Central Podrinje region) were of immense strategic importance to the Bosnian Serb leadership. Without Srebrenica, the ethnically Serb state of Republica

505 Sikirica Judgment on Defense Motions to Acquit, para. 65.506 Jelisić Trial Judgment, para. 82; Sikirica Judgment on Defence Motions to Acquit, para. 77.507 Trial Judgment, para. 560 (“The Chamber concludes that the protected group, within the meaning

of Article 4 of the Statute, must be defined, in the present case, as the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia constitute a part of the protected group under Article 4.”). See also Trial Judgment, para. 591. Although the Trial Chamber did not delineate clearly the interrelationship between these two alternative definitions, an explanation can be gleaned from its Judgment. As the Trial Chamber found, “most of the Bosnian Muslims residing in Srebrenica at the time of the [Serbian] attack were not originally from Srebrenica but from all around the central Podrinje region.” Trial Judgment, para. 559; see also ibid., para. 592 (speaking about “the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica and its surrounds”). The Trial Chamber used the term “Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica” as a short-hand for the Muslims of both Srebrenica and the surrounding areas, most of whom had, by the time of the Serbian attack against the city, sought refuge with the enclave. This is also the sense in which the term will be used in this Judgement.

508 While the Trial Chamber did not make a definitive determination as to the size of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica, the issue was not in dispute. The Prosecution estimated the number to be between 38,000 and 42,000. See Trial Judgement, para. 592. The Defence’s estimate was 40,000. See ibid., para. 593.

509 The pre-war Muslim population of the municipality of Srebrenica was 27,000. Trial Judgement, para. 11. By January 1993, four months before the UN Security Council declared Srebrenica to be a safe area, its population swelled to about 50,000 – 60,000, due to the influx of refugees from nearby regions. Ibid., para. 14. Between 8,000 and 9,000 of those who found shelter in Srebrenica were subsequently evacuated in March – April 1993 by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Ibid., para. 16.

510 The Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, when the attack against Srebrenica took place, was approximately 1,400,000. See http://www.unhabitat.org/habrdd/conditions/southeurope/bosnia.htm, accessed 26/03/2004 (estimating that the Muslims constituted 40 percent of the 1995 population of 3,569,000). The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica therefore formed about 2.9 percent of the overall population.

178Srpska they sought to create would remain divided into two disconnected parts, and its access to Serbia proper would be disrupted.511 The capture and ethnic purification of Srebrenica would therefore severely undermine the military efforts of the Bosnian Muslim state to ensure its viability, a consequence the Muslim leadership fully realized and strove to prevent. Control over the Srebrenica region was consequently essential to the goal of some Bosnian Serb leaders of forming a viable political entity in Bosnia, as well as to the continued survival of the Bosnian Muslim people. Because most of the Muslim inhabitants of the region had, by 1995, sought refuge within the Srebrenica enclave, the elimination of that enclave would have accomplished the goal of purifying the entire region of its Muslim population.16. In addition, Srebrenica was important due to its prominence in the eyes of both the Bosnian Muslims and the international community. The town of Srebrenica was the most visible of the “safe areas” established by the UN Security Council in Bosnia. By 1995 it had received significant attention in the international media. In its resolution declaring Srebrenica a safe area, the Security Council announced that it “should be free from armed attack or any other hostile act.”512 This guarantee of protection was re-affirmed by the commander of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia (UNPROFOR) and reinforced with the deployment of UN troops.513 The elimination of the Muslim population of Srebrenica, despite the assurances given by the international community, would serve as a potent example to all Bosnian Muslims of their vulnerability and defenselessness in the face of Serb military forces. The fate of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica would be emblematic of that of all Bosnian Muslims.[…]

18. In fact, the Defense does not argue that the Trial Chamber’s characterization of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica as a substantial part of the targeted group contravenes Article 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute. Rather, the Defense contends that the Trial Chamber made a further finding, concluding that the part Krstić intended to destroy was the Bosnian Muslim men of military age of Srebrenica.514 In the Defense’s view, the Trial Chamber then engaged in an impermissible sequential reasoning, measuring the latter part of the group against the larger part (the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) to find the substantiality requirement satisfied.515 The Defense submits that if the correct approach is properly applied, and the military age men are measured against the entire group of Bosnian Muslims, the substantiality requirement would not be met.516

19. The Defense misunderstands the Trial Chamber’s analysis. The Trial Chamber stated that the part of the group Radislav Krstić intended to destroy was the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica.517 The men of military age, who formed a

511 Trial Judgement, para. 12; see also para. 17.512 Security Council Resolution 819, UN Doc. S/RES/819 (1993), quoted in Trial Judgement, para. 18

& n. 17. The two other protected enclaves created by the Security Council were Žepa and Goražde. See Security Council Resolution 824, UN Doc. S/RES/824 (1993); Trial Judgement, para. 18 & n. 18.

513 Trial Judgement, paras. 15, 19 - 20.514 Defense Appeal Brief, paras. 38 - 39.515 Ibid., para. 40.516 Ibid.517 Trial Judgement, paras. 560, 561.

179further part of that group, were not viewed by the Trial Chamber as a separate, smaller part within the meaning of Article 4. Rather, the Trial Chamber treated the killing of the men of military age as evidence from which to infer that Radislav Krstić and some members of the VRS Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, the only part of the protected group relevant to the Article 4 analysis.20. In support of its argument, the Defense identifies the Trial Chamber’s determination that, in the context of this case, “the intent to kill the men [of military age] amounted to an intent to destroy a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim group.”518

The Trial Chamber’s observation was proper. As a specific intent offense, the crime of genocide requires proof of intent to commit the underlying act and proof of intent to destroy the targeted group, in whole or in part. The proof of the mental state with respect to the commission of the underlying act can serve as evidence from which the fact-finder may draw the further inference that the accused possessed the specific intent to destroy.21. The Trial Chamber determined that Radislav Krstić had the intent to kill the Srebrenica Bosnian Muslim men of military age. This finding is one of intent to commit the requisite genocidal act – in this case, the killing of the members of the protected group, prohibited by Article 4(2)(a) of the Statute. From this intent to kill, the Trial Chamber also drew the further inference that Krstić shared the genocidal intent of some members of the VRS Main Staff to destroy a substantial part of the targeted group, the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica.22. It must be acknowledged that in portions of its Judgment, the Trial Chamber used imprecise language which lends support to the Defense’s argument.519

The Trial Chamber should have expressed its reasoning more carefully. As explained above, however, the Trial Chamber’s overall discussion makes clear that it identified the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica as the substantial part in this case.23. The Trial Chamber’s determination of the substantial part of the protected group was correct. The Defense’s appeal on this issue is dismissed.

B. The Determination of the Intent to Destroy

24. The Defense also argues that the Trial Chamber erred in describing the conduct with which Radislav Krstić is charged as genocide. The Trial Chamber, the Defense submits, impermissibly broadened the definition of genocide by concluding

518 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 40 (quoting Trial Judgement, para. 634) (internal quotation marks omitted).519 See, e.g., para. 581 (“Since in this case primarily the Bosnian Muslim men of military age were killed,

a second issue is whether this group of victims represents a sufficient part of the Bosnian Muslim group so that the intent to destroy them qualifies as an ‘intent to destroy the group in whole or in part’ under Article 4 of the Statute.”); para. 634 (“[T]he Trial Chamber has concluded that, in terms of the requirement of Article 4(2) of the Statute that an intent to destroy only part of the group must nevertheless concern a substantial part thereof, either numerically or qualitatively, the military aged Bosnian Muslim men of Srebrenica do in fact constitute a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim group, because the killing of these men inevitably and fundamentally would result in the annihilation of the entire Bosnian Muslim community at Srebrenica.”).

180that an effort to displace a community from its traditional residence is sufficient to show that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy a protected group.520 By adopting this approach, the Defence argues, the Trial Chamber departed from the established meaning of the term genocide in the Genocide Convention - as applying only to instances of physical or biological destruction of a group - to include geographic displacement.521

25. The Genocide Convention, and customary international law in general, prohibit only the physical or biological destruction of a human group.522 The Trial Chamber expressly acknowledged this limitation, and eschewed any broader definition. The Chamber stated: “[C]ustomary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. [A]n enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide.”523

26. Given that the Trial Chamber correctly identified the governing legal principle, the Defense must discharge the burden of persuading the Appeals Chamber that, despite having correctly stated the law, the Trial Chamber erred in applying it. The main evidence underlying the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the VRS forces intended to eliminate all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the massacre by the VRS of all men of military age from that community.524 The Trial Chamber rejected the Defense’s argument that the killing of these men was motivated solely by the desire to eliminate them as a potential military threat.525 The Trial Chamber based this conclusion on a number of factual findings, which must be accepted as long as a reasonable Trial Chamber could have arrived at the same conclusions. The Trial Chamber found that, in executing the captured Bosnian Muslim men, the VRS did not differentiate between men of military status and civilians.526 Though civilians undoubtedly are capable of bearing arms, they do not constitute the same kind of military threat as professional soldiers. The Trial Chamber was therefore justified in drawing the inference that, by killing the civilian prisoners, the VRS did not intend only to eliminate them as a 520 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 43.521 Ibid., paras. 46 - 47.522 The International Law Commission, when drafting a code of crimes which it submitted to the

ICC Preparatory Committee, has examined closely the travaux préparatoires of the Convention in order to elucidate the meaning of the term “destroy” in the Convention’s description of the requisite intent. The Commission concluded: “As clearly shown by the preparatory work for the Convention, the destruction in question is the material destruction of a group either by physical or by biological means, not the destruction of the national, linguistic, cultural or other identity of a particular group.” Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May – 26 July 1996, G.A.O.R., 51st session, Supp. No. 10 (A/51/10) (1996), pp. 90-91. The commentators agree. See, e.g., William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law (2000), p. 229 (concluding that the drafting history of the Convention would not sustain a construction of the genocidal intent which extends beyond an intent at physical destruction).

523 Trial Judgment, para. 580. See also ibid., para. 576 (discussing the conclusion of the International Law Commission, quoted in note 39, supra).

524 Trial Judgment, para. 594.525 Ibid., para. 593.526 Ibid., para. 547, 594.

181military danger. The Trial Chamber also found that some of the victims were severely handicapped and, for that reason, unlikely to have been combatants.527 This evidence further supports the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the extermination of these men was not driven solely by a military rationale.27. Moreover, as the Trial Chamber emphasized, the term “men of military age” was itself a misnomer, for the group killed by the VRS included boys and elderly men normally considered to be outside that range.528 Although the younger and older men could still be capable of bearing arms, the Trial Chamber was entitled to conclude that they did not present a serious military threat, and to draw a further inference that the VRS decision to kill them did not stem solely from the intent to eliminate them as a threat. The killing of the military aged men was, assuredly, a physical destruction, and given the scope of the killings the Trial Chamber could legitimately draw the inference that their extermination was motivated by a genocidal intent.28. The Trial Chamber was also entitled to consider the long-term impact that the elimination of seven to eight thousand men from Srebrenica would have on the survival of that community. In examining these consequences, the Trial Chamber properly focused on the likelihood of the community’s physical survival. As the Trial Chamber found, the massacred men amounted to about one fifth of the overall Srebrenica community.529 The Trial Chamber found that, given the patriarchal character of the Bosnian Muslim society in Srebrenica, the destruction of such a sizeable number of men would “inevitably result in the physical disappearance of the Bosnian Muslim population at Srebrenica.”530 Evidence introduced at trial supported this finding, by showing that, with the majority of the men killed officially listed as missing, their spouses are unable to remarry and, consequently, to have new children.531 The physical destruction of the men therefore had severe procreative implications for the Srebrenica Muslim community, potentially consigning the community to extinction.29. This is the type of physical destruction the Genocide Convention is designed to prevent. The Trial Chamber found that the Bosnian Serb forces were aware of these consequences when they decided to systematically eliminate the captured Muslim men.532 The finding that some members of the VRS Main Staff devised the killing of the male prisoners with full knowledge of the detrimental consequences it would have for the physical survival of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica further supports the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the instigators of that operation had the requisite genocidal intent.30. The Defense argues that the VRS decision to transfer, rather than to kill, the women and children of Srebrenica in their custody undermines the finding of genocidal intent.533 This conduct, the Defense submits, is inconsistent with the

527 Ibid., para. 75 & n. 155.528 Ibid., n. 3.529 See ibid., paras. 592 - 594 (finding, on the basis of the parties’ estimates, the number of the

killed men to be approximately 7,500 and the overall size of the Srebrenica community, augmented by refugees from the surrounding areas, to be approximately 40,000).

530 Ibid., para. 595.531 See ibid., para. 93 & notes 195, 196.532 Ibid., para. 595.533 Defense Appeal Brief, paras. 53 - 57.

182indiscriminate approach that has characterized all previously recognized instances of modern genocide.534

31. The decision by Bosnian Serb forces to transfer the women, children and elderly within their control to other areas of Muslim-controlled Bosnia could be consistent with the Defense argument. This evidence, however, is also susceptible of an alternative interpretation. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself.535 The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure.32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent. The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.[…]34. The Defense also argues that the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica.536 The absence of such statements is not determinative. Where direct evidence of genocidal intent is absent, the intent may still be inferred from the factual circumstances of the crime.537 The inference that a particular atrocity was motivated by genocidal intent may be drawn, moreover, even where the individuals to whom the intent is attributable are not precisely identified. If the crime committed satisfies the other requirements of genocide, and if the evidence supports the inference that the crime was motivated by the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, a finding that genocide has occurred may be entered.35. In this case, the factual circumstances, as found by the Trial Chamber, permit the inference that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was done with genocidal intent. As already explained, the scale of the killing, combined with the VRS Main

534 Ibid., para. 53.535 Trial Judgement, para. 595.536 Defense Appeal Brief, paras. 74-77.537 Jelisić Appeal Judgment, para. 47; see also Rutaganda Appeal Judgment, para. 528.

183Staff’s awareness of the detrimental consequences it would have for the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica and with the other actions the Main Staff took to ensure that community’s physical demise, is a sufficient factual basis for the finding of specific intent. The Trial Chamber found, and the Appeals Chamber endorses this finding, that the killing was engineered and supervised by some members of the Main Staff of the VRS.538 The fact that the Trial Chamber did not attribute genocidal intent to a particular official within the Main Staff may have been motivated by a desire not to assign individual culpability to persons not on trial here. This, however, does not undermine the conclusion that Bosnian Serb forces carried out genocide against the Bosnian Muslims.36. Among the grievous crimes this Tribunal has the duty to punish, the crime of genocide is singled out for special condemnation and opprobrium. The crime is horrific in its scope; its perpetrators identify entire human groups for extinction. Those who devise and implement genocide seek to deprive humanity of the manifold richness its nationalities, races, ethnicities and religions provide. This is a crime against all of humankind, its harm being felt not only by the group targeted for destruction, but by all of humanity.[…]38. In concluding that some members of the VRS Main Staff intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, the Trial Chamber did not depart from the legal requirements for genocide. The Defense appeal on this issue is dismissed.

III. Alleged factual errors relating to joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide

39. As already stated, the crime of genocide was committed at Srebrenica in July 1995, a determination which the Trial Chamber correctly made. The Defense argues, however, that even if the finding of genocide was correct, the Trial Chamber erred in finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Radislav Krstić was a member of a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide.539

40. It is well established that the Appeals Chamber will not lightly overturn findings of fact made by a Trial Chamber.540 Where the Defense alleges an erroneous finding of fact, the Appeals Chamber must give deference to the Trial Chamber that received the evidence at trial, and it will only interfere in those findings where no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the same finding or where the finding is wholly erroneous.541 Furthermore, the erroneous finding will be revoked or revised only if the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice.542

[…]538 Trial Judgement, paras. 591 - 599.539 Appellant Appeal Brief, paras. 84 - 101.540 Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 11.541 Ibid., para. 12; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 434;

Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63.542 Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras. 13, 39; Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 8

18443. In attacking this conclusion, the Defense advances three arguments. First, the Defense challenges the Trial Chamber’s finding that Radislav Krstić assumed effective command over the Drina Corps and Drina Corps assets on 13 July 1995, and not later.543 Secondly, the Defense contests the Trial Chamber’s rejection of its argument that a parallel Drina Corps, excluded Radislav Krstić from participation in (and even knowledge of) the executions.544 Thirdly, the Defense challenges the finding of the Trial Chamber that Krstić directly participated in the executions and argues that, even if the evidence before the Trial Chamber is sufficient to establish knowledge on his part about the genocide committed in Srebrenica, it is not sufficient to establish that he intended to commit genocide.545

44. As a final, additional argument, the Defence submits that Radislav Krstić could not reasonably have foreseen the commission of the opportunistic crimes at Potočari on 12 and 13 July 1995, and that the crimes were not a natural and foreseeable consequence of the ethnic cleansing campaign.546 The Appeals Chamber will consider the first three of these arguments, and will then detail its analysis of Krstić’s criminal liability in light of its findings, before considering the final, additional argument.

A. The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the date on which Radislav Krstić assumed command of the Drina Corps

45. The Trial Chamber found that Radislav Krstić became the de facto commander of the Drina Corps on the evening of 13 July 1995, with the formal confirmation of his command following a 15 July 1995 decree issued by President Karadžić.547 The Defense challenges this finding, relying on the fact that the Presidential Decree appointing him as Corps Commander provided that the appointment was to take effect only on 15 July.548 The Defense also relies on the fact that the VRS formalities, which had to be completed prior to the transfer of the command, were not completed until 20 July,549 and on the evidence showing that General Živanović retained command until that date.550

46. The arguments the Defense now puts forward were extensively considered by the Trial Chamber. The Chamber, relying on eye-witness and documentary evidence, found that despite the date specified by the decree, the transfer of command to Radislav Krstić took place on 13 July. In support of its finding, the Trial Chamber relied, for example, on the evidence that a formal ceremony, attended by the officers of the Drina Corps at Vlasenica Headquarters, at which General Mladić conferred the

543 Defense Appeal Brief, paras. 204 - 210.544 Ibid., paras. 176 - 203.545 Ibid., paras. 157 - 175.546 Ibid., para. 143, 154.547 Ibid., paras. 328 - 331, 625.548 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 205.549 Ibid., para. 206.550 Ibid., paras. 207 - 208.

185command on Krstić, took place on 13 July.551 The Trial Chamber also concluded that the exigencies of war may have necessitated dispensation with the formal procedures for the transfer of the command.552 The Trial Chamber considered the evidence of General Živanović’s continued role in the Drina Corps and found that that evidence was outweighed by the evidence that Krstić assumed and began to exercise command on 13 July 1995.553 The Trial Chamber’s conclusion is further supported by the combat report dated 13 July, and signed by Radislav Krstić as the Commander, which the Prosecution presented in this Appeal as additional evidence.554

47. The conclusions of the Trial Chamber are entirely reasonable and supported by ample evidence. The Defense has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the Trial Chamber, much less that the finding was one that no reasonable Trial Chamber could have reached.

B. The Trial Chamber’s rejection of the Defence of Parallel Chain of Command

48. The Defense next argues that the Trial Chamber erred in rejecting its claim that the executions were ordered and supervised through a parallel chain of command maintained by the VRS security forces, over which Radislav Krstić did not have control. According to the Defense, this chain of command originated with General Mladić, went through his Security Commander, Colonel Beara of the VRS Main Staff, to Colonel Popović of the Drina Corps and finally to the Zvornik Brigade Security Officer, Dragan Nikolić.555 Acting through this parallel chain of command, the Defense submits, the Main Staff of the VRS could and did commandeer Drina Corps assets without consulting the Drina Corps Command.556

49. The Defense’s argument is an exact repetition of the argument it presented at trial. This argument was fully considered by the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber acknowledged that General Mladić exercised some control over the Drina Corps within its zone of responsibility. The Chamber concluded, however, that the evidence could not support a finding that the Drina Corps command was completely excluded from all knowledge or authority with respect to the involvement of its troops and assets in the execution of the Bosnian Muslim civilians.557

551 Trial Judgement, paras. 312 - 315.552 Ibid., paras. 329, 317.553 Ibid., para. 330.554 T, pp. 406 - 407, Annex 7.555 Defence Appeal Brief, paras. 197 - 198.556 Ibid., para. 177.557 Trial Judgement, paras. 88 - 89.

186 1. The Trial Chamber’s finding that the Main Staff of the VRS and the MUP forces subordinate to it received co-operation from Radislav Krstić and the Drina Corps

(a) The treatment of prisoners

50. The Defense argues, as it did at trial, that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that the Main Staff of the VRS and the MUP forces subordinate to it received co-operation from Radislav Krstić and the Drina Corps in carrying out the executions. The Defense relies on an order issued on 13 July 1995 by General Gvero, the Assistant Commander of the Main Staff, directing that the “Superior Command” be immediately informed as to the location where the prisoners were taken. The Defense argues that this order shows that the Main Staff assumed responsibility for the prisoners.558 The Defense also relies on General Mladić’s statement to the prisoners held at Sandići Meadow and Nova Kasaba that General Mladić was personally making arrangements for their exchange or transportation.559 Finally, the Defense relies on the fact that the Trial Chamber was unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Drina Corps had participated in the capture of the prisoners.560

51. As the Trial Chamber explained, however, General Gvero’s order was issued to the Drina Corps Command and the relevant subordinate Brigades,561 and therefore constitutes strong evidence that the Drina Corps knew about the capture of the prisoners and acted in “close co-ordination and co-operation” with the MUP units.562

The Trial Chamber also considered the appearance of General Mladić and his address to the prisoners at Sandići Meadow and Nova Kosaba. These actions were consistent with General Mladić’s position as the Commander of all VRS forces, including the Drina Corps, and do not support an inference that subordinate commanders, such as Krstić, were excluded from the normal military chain of command.563 The absence of a finding by the Trial Chamber that the Drina Corps participated in the capture of the prisoners is similarly inapposite. Relying on considerable evidence, the Trial Chamber established that the Drina Corps and Radislav Krstić knew that thousands of Bosnian Muslim prisoners had been captured on 13 July 1995, and continued to be informed about their situation.564

[…]54. The evidence on which the Defense relies was considered by the Trial Chamber when it analyzed the respective involvement of the Main Staff and the Drina Corps Command in the capture and detention of the Bosnian Muslim prisoners.565

The Trial Chamber accepted that the evidence demonstrated that the Main Staff was

558 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 177.559 Ibid., paras. 179 - 180.560 Ibid., paras. 178 - 185.561 Trial Judgement, para. 168.562 Ibid., para. 289.563 Ibid., paras. 268.564 Ibid., paras. 168 - 178, 377.565 Trial Judgement, paras. 265 - 272.

187“heavily involved in the direction of events following the take over of Srebrenica,” and that there were “indications that Drina Corps units were not always informed or consulted about what the Main Staff was doing in their area of concern during the week following 11 July.”566 The Trial Chamber found, however, that the evidence made it “abundantly clear that the Main Staff could not, and did not, handle the entire Srebrenica follow- up operation on its own and at almost every stage had to, and did, call upon Drina Corps resources for assistance.”567 The Defense does not dispute this finding, which the Appeals Chamber accepts.

(b) The selection of sites

55. The Defence next argues that the selection of sites for the detention of the prisoners, initially in Bratunac, was conducted entirely by the Main Staff with no participation by the Drina Corps. Relying on the vehicle records of the Zvornik Brigade, the Defense argues that contrary to the Trial Chamber’s finding, the Zvornik Brigade did not know that one of its vehicles was being used in this operation.568

According to the Defense, the intercepted conversation of 14 July 1995 between the Zvornik Brigade duty officer and Colonel Beara, in which the issue of the captured prisoners was discussed, confirms that Colonel Beara was not following the normal chain of command because he was speaking to the duty officer directly. This, the Defense claims, confirms that the Main Staff could and did utilize Zvornik Brigade assets without going through the Zvornik Brigade Command.569

56. Once again, each of the arguments made by the Defense was presented to the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber found that the Zvornik Brigade must have known the purpose for which the vehicle was being used, as vehicle records established that it was operated by members of the Zvornik Brigade military police.570

The intercept of 14 July, on which the Defense relies, does not undermine this finding or otherwise support the Defense’s argument. Although the Trial Chamber did not conclude that the Drina Corps Command was directly involved in making the arrangements to detain the men at Bratunac, it concluded that the Drina Corps was aware that those men were being so detained.571 This finding is supported by sufficient evidence, and the Appeals Chamber accepts it.

(c) Use of Drina Corps resources without the knowledge of Drina Corps Command

57. The Defense’s argument, then, is that even though Drina Corps resources were utilized in the executions, the requisition of these resources was done without the knowledge of the Drina Corps Command. In rejecting this argument, the Trial Chamber relied on the fact that, in accordance with the military principles of the VRS, the Main Staff could not have come into the Drina Corps zone of responsibility

566 Ibid., para. 265.567 Ibid., para. 266.568 Defense Appeal Brief, paras. 183 - 184.569 Ibid., para. 184 - 185.570 Ibid., paras. 187 - 191, 239.571 Ibid., para. 181.

188and assumed complete control of its assets and personnel without the consent of the Corps Command.572 The Trial Chamber also emphasized the involvement of the Drina Corps in the organization of the buses for the transportation of the Bosnian Muslim civilians, which contradicted the theory that the Main Staff had taken over direct command of subordinate Drina Corps Brigades.573 As the Trial Chamber explained, the Drina Corps Command was kept informed by the Main Staff about activities within its zone. This was shown, for example, in an intercept of 15 July, in which Colonel Beara made an urgent request to Krstić for assistance and was directed to contact the Commander of the Bratunac Brigade.574 This evidence, in the Trial Chamber’s estimation, strongly undermined the notion that the Main Staff was directing activities of the Drina Corps subordinate units without consulting the Drina Corps Command.575

[…]63. The Trial Chamber’s rejection of the Defense’s argument as to the parallel chain of command, even when examined in light of the Defense’s additional evidence, is not one that no reasonable trier of fact could have made.

C. The Trial Chamber’s finding that Radislav Krstić directly participated in the executions

64. As stated above, the Defence challenges the finding of the Trial Chamber that Radislav Krstić directly participated in the executions and argues that, even if the evidence before the Trial Chamber is sufficient to establish knowledge on his part of the genocide committed in Srebrenica, it is not sufficient to establish that he intended to commit genocide.

1. The Trial Chamber’s conclusions regarding the Bratunac Brigade’s participation in the executions

65. The Defence argues that the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that on 16 July 1995 members of the Bratunac Brigade, a unit of the Drina Corps subordinate to Radislav Krstić, participated in the killings at Branjevo Farm and the Pilica Cultural Dom.576

(a) The evidence of Drazen Erdemović

[…]69. The insufficiency of Mr. Erdemović’s evidence is highlighted by the testimony of the Prosecution military expert, Richard Butler. Correcting evidence he gave during trial, Mr. Butler made clear during the Appeal hearing that Mr. Erdemović had never said that the men who were sent to assist in the executions were from the

572 Ibid., para. 268.573 Ibid., para. 269.574 Ibid., paras. 269 - 270.575 Ibid., para. 270.576 Trial Judgement, para. 158.

189Bratunac Brigade, only that they were from the town of Bratunac.577 Mr. Butler also confirmed that one of the men referred to by Mr. Erdemović was identified as being a member of the Panteri unit from the East Bosnia Corps.578 In light of this fact, Mr. Butler now concluded that the men that arrived to assist in the executions did not belong to the Bratunac Brigade.579

70. In light of the above, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the men of the Bratunac Brigade participated in the executions at Branjevo Farm and the Pilica Dom on 16 July 1995 is not one that a reasonable trier of fact could have made. There was no direct evidence to establish the involvement of the Drina Corps in carrying out these executions.

(b) The Zvornik Brigade Report

71. The Trial Chamber also based its finding that the men participating in the executions were from the Bratunac Brigade on a Zvornik Brigade Report of 16 July 1995, which stated that, in addition to the regular troops of the Zvornik Brigade forces, two platoons from the Bratunac Brigade were operating under its command.580

This evidence, however, can only establish that platoons from the Bratunac Brigade were operating under the command of the Zvornik Brigade; it does not establish the involvement of those troops in the executions. In fact, the Trial Chamber only relied upon this evidence to establish that Bratunac troops were in the vicinity at that time in order to corroborate the evidence given by Mr. Erdemović.581

(c) The Trial Chamber’s findings with respect to certain intercepts

(i) The intercept of 16 July 1995

72. The Trial Chamber also relied on an intercepted conversation of 16 July 1995, in which Colonel Popović asked to be connected to Radislav Krstić. When told that Krstić was unavailable, he asked to be connected to the Commanding Officer. Colonel Popović then spoke with Mr. Rašić, a duty officer of the Drina Corps. Colonel Popović reported to Mr. Rašić that he was “just up there … with the boss personally,” that he has “finished the job,” and that Mr. Rašić should inform the “General.”582 Mr. Rašić asked Colonel Popović whether the men from Colonel Blagojević’s command arrived on time, and Colonel Popović replied that these men were “up there” but had arrived late and “that is why the Commander who was here had problems.” Relying upon the evidence given by Mr. Butler, the Trial Chamber concluded that the reference to Colonel Popović being “up there” meant that Colonel Popović has just returned

577 Testimony of Richard Butler pursuant to the Order of the Appeals Chamber granting the Appellant’s Oral Rule 115 Motion, 24 November 2003 (“Butler Report”), T, p. 4617.

578 Ibid., T, p. 4621.579 Ibid., T, pp. 4171 - 4718.580 Trial Judgement, paras. 240, 246.581 Ibid., para. 240.582 Defence Appeal Brief, paras. 165 - 166.

190from an area north of Zvornik, (i.e. the Pilica area) and that Mr.Rašić (and therefore the Drina Corps Command) knew of the executions that had occurred there.583

73. On appeal, however, Mr. Butler corrected the evidence that he gave at trial in light of the evidence he had given in the Blagojević trial.584 In particular, he explained, the second reference made to “up there” and the problems resulting from the late arrival of Colonel Blagojević’s men were a reference to the area of the battlefield towards the IKM (or Forward Command Post) and the Baljkovica area, where the most significant fighting took place. The problems mentioned during the phone conversation concerned the late arrival of reinforcements, which resulted in a situation where Colonel Pandurević had to open a corridor to allow the column of Bosnian Muslim men to go through.585 The Trial Chamber, however, had relied upon this intercept as further evidence that the men were sent from the Bratunac Brigade to assist in the executions on 16 July 1995 following Colonel Beara’s request to Radislav Krstić for additional men on the morning of 15 July.586 In light of the additional evidence given by Mr. Butler, this inference is unsustainable.

(ii) The Trial Chamber’s reliance on two further intercepted conversations dated 15 July 1995

74. The Defense further argues that the Trial Chamber erroneously interpreted an intercept of 15 July 1995 between Radislav Krstić and Colonel Beara as establishing that Krstić agreed to provide, and did provide, Colonel Beara with men from the Bratunac Brigade to assist in the executions. In fact, the Defense argues, the facts show that Radislav Krstić never followed up on Colonel Beara’s request.587

75. The Trial Chamber relied upon two other intercepted conversations, both dated 15 July, as establishing that Krstić provided direct assistance to the executions.588 In the first intercept, Colonel Beara requested General Živanović to send more men. General Živanović refused this request, and referred Colonel Beara to Radislav Krstić. Colonel Beara then urgently requested the assistance of Krstić in the distribution of “3,500 parcels,” telling him that “Furtula didn’t carry out the boss’s order.” The Trial Chamber concluded that this was a code term used in military communications to signify captured Muslim men who were to be killed. Krstić suggested that Colonel Beara seek help from other units, including the Bratunac and Milići Brigades of the Drina Corps, as well as the MUP. Colonel Beara replied that they are not available. Krstić then stated that he would see what he could do.589 The Trial Chamber interpreted this response as evidencing an undertaking to secure the assistance requested.590

583 Trial Judgement, para. 401.584 AT, pp. 217 - 221; the relevant evidence is at Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić,

Case No. IT-02- 60-T, Transcript of hearing dated 14 November 2003, page 4608 et seq.585 Butler Report, T, pp. 4615 - 4616.586 Trial Judgement, para. 401.587 Defence Appeal Brief., paras. 174 - 175.588 Trial Judgement, para. 380.589 Ibid., para. 382.590 Ibid., paras. 385, 387.

19176. The Trial Chamber based its conclusion that the term “parcel” was a reference to Bosnian Muslims on evidence in other intercepts in which that term was used, and more specifically on an intercept in which a reference to “people” was corrected to “parcels.”591 As for the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the word “distribute” referred to killing, that conclusion appears to be based solely on the Prosecution’s opening statement, where it argued that “distribute” meant to kill.592 The Trial Chamber found the Prosecution’s argument persuasive, and, in the absence of any further examination of the term, the Trial Chamber does not appear to have based its understanding of the word “distribute” on anything more than the Prosecution’s assertion. While such an inference may be drawn from this coded language, its meaning is insufficiently clear to conclude that no alternative interpretation is possible. Moreover, Krstić’s statements to Colonel Beara that he “will see what he can do” cannot support the weight of reliance the Trial Chamber placed upon it. Rather than a firm promise of help, the statements could have been a refusal to commit, an effort by Krstić to end the conversation without saying a firm “no” but also without assuming an unambiguous obligation to help.

(d) The considerations of the Appeals Chamber

77. Given the evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber, and the corrections made to that evidence by Mr. Butler, the finding of the Trial Chamber that men from the Bratunac Brigade were dispatched by Krstić to assist in the executions at Branjevo Farm and Pilica Dom is one that no reasonable trier of fact could have made. The evidence fails to establish the direct involvement of the Drina Corps in carrying out the executions, and as such cannot be relied upon as evidence of Radislav Krstić’s direct involvement in assisting the executions.

78. The evidence does, however, establish the involvement of Drina Corps personnel and assets in facilitating the executions.The Trial Chamber’s finding on that point is supported by Mr. Erdemović’s evidence that his unit was accompanied to the Branjevo Military Farm by two Drina Corps military police officers, and that military police officers wearing the insignia of the Drina Corps escorted the buses of Bosnian Muslim civilians to the Branjevo Military Farm, and supervised their unloading.

D. The Appeals Chamber’s Analysis of Radislav Krstić’s Criminal Responsibility

79. It remains for the Appeals Chamber to determine whether the Trial Chamber erred in finding that Radislav Krstić shared the genocidal intent of a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide against the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica. The Appeals Chamber will now proceed with its analysis of Krstić’s criminal responsibility in light of its findings above.

591 Ibid., par 383.592 Ibid., n. 1015 (citing T 483).

192 1. The Trial Chamber’s finding that Radislav Krstić shared the intent of a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide

80. The Defense argues that in finding that Radislav Krstić shared the intent to commit genocide, the Trial Chamber failed to accord to him the presumption of innocence. The Defense identifies a number of instances in which the Trial Chamber used the language “must have known,” “could not have failed to know,” and “could only surmise” as illustrative of this failure.593 The Defense argues that the Trial Chamber adopted this language to mask the lack of a proper evidentiary basis for its finding that Krstić possessed the intent to commit genocide.594

81. The Trial Chamber properly articulated the standard of proof to be applied to the Defense as being one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.595 The Trial Chamber’s reliance upon language such as “must have known” is indicative of the nature of the case against Krstić being one based upon circumstantial evidence. While the Trial Chamber should have used less ambiguous language when making findings concerning Krstić’s knowledge and intent, the regrettable choice of phraseology alone is not sufficient to overturn the Trial Chamber’s findings.82. The Defense argues, however, that even if the Trial Chamber properly articulated the standard of proof, its conclusion that Krstić shared the genocidal intent of the joint criminal enterprise is erroneous. The Appeals Chamber therefore considers the evidence on which the Trial Chamber relied to establish that Krstić shared the intent of the joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide.83. As already stated, the case against Radislav Krstić was one based on circumstantial evidence, and the finding of the Trial Chamber was largely based upon a combination of circumstantial facts. In convicting Krstić as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide, the Trial Chamber relied upon evidence establishing his knowledge of the intention on the part of General Mladić and other members of the VRS Main Staff to execute the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, his knowledge of the use of personnel and resources of the Drina Corps to carry out that intention given his command position, and upon evidence that Radislav Krstić supervised the participation of his subordinates in carrying out those executions.

2. Contacts between Radislav Krstić and other participants in the joint criminal enterprise

84. The Trial Chamber found the contacts between Krstić and General Mladić to be crucial to establishing Radislav Krstić’s genocidal intent. The parties agreed that General Mladić was the main figure behind the killings. The Trial Chamber found that Generals Krstić and Mladić were in constant contact throughout the relevant period.596 The Trial Chamber concluded that “if General Mladić knew about the killings, it would be natural for Krstić to know as well”.597

593 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 96.594 Ibid., para. 97.595 Trial Judgement, para. 2.596 Ibid., para. 407.597 Ibid.

193 (a) Radislav Krstić’s presence at the meetings in the Hotel Fontana

85. Reaching this conclusion, the Trial Chamber first relied upon the presence of Krstić at the second and third of three meetings convened by General Mladić at the Hotel Fontana on 11 and 12 July 1995. The fate of the Bosnian Muslims following the fall of Srebrenica was discussed at these meetings.598 Based on his presence at two of these meetings, the Trial Chamber concluded that Radislav Krstić “was put on notice that the survival of the Bosnian Muslim population was in question following the take-over of Srebrenica.”599

[…]87. The most that Radislav Krstić’s presence at these meetings established is his knowledge about General Mladić’s decisions to transfer the population from Potočari to Muslim-held territory on buses, and to screen the male members of this population prior to transportation for war criminals. As the Trial Chamber acknowledged, the decision to screen was neither criminal nor unreasonable. The Bratunac Brigade had drawn up a list of over 350 suspected war criminals thought to be in the Srebrenica area.600 Although General Mladić also announced that the survival of the population depended upon the complete surrender of the ABiH, it is unlikely that General Mladić would be disclosing his genocidal intent in the presence of UNPROFOR leaders and foreign media, or that those present at the meeting, including Krstić, would have interpreted his comments in that light. There was no evidence to suggest that at this time Radislav Krstić knew about the intent on the part of General Mladić to execute the Bosnian Muslim civilians who were to be transferred.[…]

(b) The evidence of Momir Nikolić and Miroslav Deronjić

92. The Prosecution argues, as it did at trial, that Radislav Krstić knew at the time of his attendance at the third meeting at the Hotel Fontana of the genocidal intent of the Serb leadership. The Prosecution relies upon the additional evidence given by Momir Nikolić in the Blagojević trial, and admitted in this Appeal, and upon the evidence of Miroslav Deronjić, who was summoned by the Appeals Chamber on its own initiative.93. Momir Nikolić testified that on the morning of the 12 July 1995, and prior to the third meeting at the Fontana Hotel, he met with Lieutenant Colonel Kosotić and Colonel Popović, and was told by Colonel Popović that on that day the women and children would be evacuated but the men would be temporarily detained and then killed. The Prosecution argues that this evidence shows that a firm plan to kill the Muslim men of Srebrenica was formed as early as 12 July 1995.601 While this evidence may support the existence of such a plan on the part of the Main Staff of the VRS, it does not go to Krstić’s knowledge of or participation in such a plan.

598 Ibid., para. 339.599 Ibid., para. 343.600 Ibid., para. 156.601 T, p. 401.

19494. The evidence given by Miroslav Deronjić does not help the Prosecution either. Although Mr. Deronjić gave some evidence of an intention on the part of the Serb leadership prior to 13 July 1995 to kill the Bosnian Muslim civilians in Srebrenica should military operations in that region be successful, he gave no evidence linking Radislav Krstić to a genocidal plan or indicating that Krstić was aware of that intention on the part of the Bosnian Serb leadership.602 As such, the evidence of neither additional witness supports the Prosecution’s argument. Further, the Appeals Chamber is hesitant to base any decision on Mr. Deronjić’s testimony without having corroborating evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence given by Mr. Deronjić and the ambiguities surrounding some of the statements he made, particularly with respect to his sighting of Krstić at Hotel Fontana, caution the Appeals Chamber against relying on his evidence alone.

(c) The Trial Chamber’s findings regarding Radislav Krstić’s presence around Potočari and the removal of the men from the buses at Tišća

95. The Trial Chamber rejected the Prosecution’s argument that Krstić’s assistance in organizing the transportation of the women, children and elderly from Potočari were acts carried out pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide. The Trial Chamber did however rely on the presence of Radislav Krstić in and around the Potočari compound for between one and two hours in the afternoon of 12 July, at which time he was seen conferring with other high ranking military officers, including General Mladić, as evidence of his growing knowledge that genocide would be committed.603 The Trial Chamber found that as a result of his presence there, Krstić “must have known of the appalling conditions facing the Bosnian Muslim refugees and the general mistreatment inflicted upon them by VRS soldiers on that day.”604 The Trial Chamber further found that, based on Krstić’s presence at the White House, he was aware that the segregated men were being detained in terrible conditions and were not being treated in accordance with accepted practice for war crime screening.605 The Trial Chamber concluded that he must have realized, as did all other witnesses present around the compound, that the fate of these men was terribly uncertain but that he made no effort to clarify this with General Mladić or anyone else.606

96. However, the Trial Chamber also concluded that it was not until 13 July 1995 that Dutch-bat troops witnessed definite signs that Bosnian Serbs were executing some of the Bosnian Muslim men who had been separated; that it was not until all the Bosnian Muslim civilians were removed from Potočari that the personal belongings of the separated men were destroyed; and that Dutch-bat troops were certain that the story of screening for war criminals was not true.607 The Trial Chamber was unable to conclude that any Drina Corps personnel were still in the compound at that time, and there was no evidence that Krstić was either aware of the shootings at the White

602 Appeal Proceedings, Friday 21 November 2003, T, pp. 101 - 174.603 Trial Judgement, paras. 352 - 354.604 Ibid., para. 354.605 Ibid., para. 367.606 Ibid.607 Ibid., para. 58.

195House, or the destruction of the personal belongings of the separated men.608

97. The Trial Chamber also found that Radislav Krstić must have known that men who managed to board the buses with the women, children and elderly were being removed from them at Tišća.609 Evidence of an intercept of 12 July 1995 established that Krstić ordered the Drina Corps to secure the road from Vlasenica toward Tuzla. The Trial Chamber concluded that this fact gave rise to the inference that he must have known men were being taken off the buses at Tišća. It further found that the Chief of Staff of the Milići Brigade, and troops from his unit, were present at the Tišća screening site upon the orders of the Drina Corps Command.610 On the basis of this evidence the Trial Chamber concluded that it was clear that Krstić must have known that men were being separated at Tišća and taken to detention sites. Notably, however, the Trial Chamber did not establish at this point that Radislav Krstić knew the prisoners were to be executed.611

98. It should be clear by now that - despite the Trial Chamber’s assertion that if General Mladić knew about the killings, then Krstić must have also known - the Trial Chamber did not actually establish, from Krstić’s contacts with General Mladić during the relevant period, that Radislav Krstić in fact learned of the intention to execute the Bosnian Muslims as a result of those contacts. The Trial Chamber’s assertion was without a proper evidentiary basis. Without having established that Krstić knew of that intention on the part of General Mladić, no reasonable Trial Chamber could have made the further inference that Krstić shared that intention. Although the Trial Chamber placed relatively little weight upon the finding in terms of determining the criminal liability of Radislav Krstić, this erroneous finding of the Trial Chamber casts some doubt upon its overall conclusion that Radislav Krstić shared the genocidal intent.

(d) The Trial Chamber’s reliance on various other facts

99. The Trial Chamber based its finding as to Krstić’s intent on a number of other facts as well. The men separated at Potočari were transported to Bratunac, along with other Bosnian Muslim prisoners captured in the wooded terrain. The Trial Chamber found that the Bratunac Brigade would have informed the Drina Corps Command about the arrival of the prisoners,612 and that the Drina Corps Command must have known that the prisoners were not being transferred to regular prisoner of war facilities, but were being detained in Bratunac without any provision for food and water etc.613 From Radislav Krstić’s presence in Potočari and his role in organizing the transportation, the Trial Chamber concluded that he must known that the men were being separated from women and children and either detained, or were being transported elsewhere.614

608 Ibid., paras. 160, 367.609 Ibid., para. 368.610 Ibid., para. 369.611 Ibid.612 Ibid., para. 183.613 Ibid., para. 295.614 Ibid., para. 363.

196100. This evidence does not by itself establish that Krstić knew about the joint criminal enterprise to destroy the Bosnian Muslim population. As the Trial Chamber itself acknowledged, the separation of the men and their detention elsewhere may have been equally consistent with General Mladić’s publicly stated intention that they be screened for possible war criminals. The separation and detention of the men was also consistent with an intention to exchange the prisoners for the Serbian soldiers captured by the Bosnian Muslims. The Trial Chamber heard evidence that such exchanges were frequent during the military conflict in the former Yugoslavia and that “a new infusion of Bosnian Muslim prisoners would have been a potentially useful bargaining tool for the Bosnian Serbs in future exchange negotiations.”615 Indeed, the decision to execute the Bosnian Muslim civilians was, according to the Prosecution expert, “unfathomable in military terms”.616 If this decision was so unexpected and irrational, it is surely unreasonable to expect Radislav Krstić to anticipate such a course of events on the basis of observations that are equally (if not more so) consistent with an innocent outcome. Krstić’s knowledge of the detention of prisoners in Bratunac is therefore not sufficient to support an inference of actual knowledge about the execution plan, and by extension, an inference of genocidal intent on the part of Krstić.[…]

(e) The Trial Chamber’s other findings militating against a finding of genocidal intent

131. The Trial Chamber also made numerous findings that militate against a conclusion that Radislav Krstić had genocidal intent. It found that although Krstić was not a reluctant participant in the forcible transfer of the Bosnian Muslim population, he did appear concerned to ensure that the operation was conducted in an orderly fashion. He simply wanted the civilian population out of the area and he had no interest in mistreating them along the way. The Trial Chamber acknowledged, moreover, that the evidence could not establish that “Radislav Krstic himself ever envisaged that the chosen method of removing the Bosnian Muslims from the enclave would be to systematically execute part of the civilian population” and that he “appeared as a reserved and serious career officer who is unlikely to have ever instigated a plan such as the one devised for the mass execution of Bosnian Muslim men, following the take-over of Srebrenica in July 1995.”617 The Trial Chamber found that “left to his own devices, it seems doubtful that Krstić would have been associated with such a plan at all.”618

132. The Trial Chamber also found that Radislav Krstić made efforts to ensure the safety of the Bosnian Muslim civilians transported out of Potočari. In an intercept of 12 July 1995, he was heard ordering that no harm must come to the civilians and, in the interview he gave in Potočari on 12 July 1995, guaranteed their safe transportation out.619 The Trial Chamber found that Krstić showed similar concerns for the Bosnian Muslim civilians during the Žepa campaign. In an intercept of 25 July 1995 he was

615 Ibid., para. 156.616 Ibid., para. 70.617 Ibid., para. 420.618 Ibid.619 Ibid., para. 358.

197heard to order that a convoy of civilians bound for Kladanj be treated in a civilised manner, “so that nothing of the kind of problem we had before happens.”620 The Trial Chamber concluded that while this intercept suggested that Radislav Krstić was anxious for the transfer to proceed properly, it also indicated that he was aware of problems with earlier transfers.621 The conclusion that he was “aware of problems with earlier transfers,” and now took steps to avoid mistreatment, goes against the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that Krstić had been a willing participant in a joint criminal enterprise of genocide.133. Finally, the Trial Chamber referred to the evidence of a Defense witness that on 13 July 1995 he had a conversation about the Bosnian Muslim column with Krstić, who had expressed the view that the VRS should allow the column to pass so that the situation could be “ended as it should.” The Trial Chamber relied on the evidence as indicating awareness on the part of Radislav Krstić that attempts were being made to capture the men from the column. The evidence, however, indicates that Krstić harbored no genocidal intent.622 His own particular intent was directed to a forcible displacement. Some other members of the VRS Main Staff harbored the same intent to carry out forcible displacement, but viewed this displacement as a step in the accomplishment of their genocidal objective. It would be erroneous, however, to link Krstić’s specific intent to carry out forcible displacement with the same intent possessed by other members of the Main Staff, to whom the forcible displacement was a means of advancing the genocidal plan.

(f) The Appeals Chamber’s preliminary conclusion regarding the Trial Chamber’s finding of Radislav Krstić’s genocidal intent

134. As has been demonstrated, all that the evidence can establish is that Krstić was aware of the intent to commit genocide on the part of some members of the VRS Main Staff, and with that knowledge, he did nothing to prevent the use of Drina Corps personnel and resources to facilitate those killings. This knowledge on his part alone cannot support an inference of genocidal intent. Genocide is one of the worst crimes known to humankind, and its gravity is reflected in the stringent requirement of specific intent. Convictions for genocide can be entered only where that intent has been unequivocally established. There was a demonstrable failure by the Trial Chamber to supply adequate proof that Radislav Krstić possessed the genocidal intent. Krstić, therefore, is not guilty of genocide as a principal perpetrator.

E. The Criminal Responsibility of Radislav Krstić: Aiding and Abetting Genocide

135. The issue that arises now is the level of Radislav Krstić’s criminal responsibility in the circumstances as properly established. All of the crimes that followed the fall of Srebrenica occurred in the Drina Corps zone of responsibility. There was no evidence that the Drina Corps devised or instigated any of the atrocities,

620 Ibid., para. 359.621 Ibid., para. 360.622 Ibid., para. 374.

198and the evidence strongly suggested that the criminal activity was being directed by some members of the VRS Main Staff under the direction of General Mladić.623 At the time the executions commenced Krstić was engaged in preparing for combat activities at Žepa and, from 14 July 1995 onwards, directing the attack itself.624

[…]138. Krstić’s responsibility is accurately characterized as aiding and abetting genocide under Article 7(1) of the Statute, not as complicity in genocide under Article 4(3)(e). The charge of complicity was also alleged in the indictment, as Count 2.625 The Trial Chamber did not enter a conviction on this count, concluding that Radislav Krstić’s responsibility was that of a principal perpetrator.626 As the Trial Chamber observed, there is an overlap between Article 4(3) as the general provision enumerating punishable forms of participation in genocide and Article 7(1) as the general provision for criminal liability which applies to all the offences punishable under the Statute, including the offence of genocide.627 There is support for a position that Article 4(3) may be the more specific provision (lex specialis) in relation to Article 7(1).628 There is, however, also authority indicating that modes of participation enumerated in Article 7(1) should be read, as the Tribunal’s Statute directs, into Article 4(3), and so the proper characterization of such individual’s criminal liability would be that of aiding and abetting genocide.629

139. The Appeals Chamber concludes that the latter approach is the correct one in this case. Article 7(1) of the Statute, which allows liability to attach to an aider and abettor, expressly applies that mode of liability to any “crime referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute,” including the offence of genocide prohibited by Article 4. Because the Statute must be interpreted with the utmost respect to the language used by the legislator, the Appeals Chamber may not conclude that the consequent overlap between Article 7(1) and Article 4(3)(e) is a result of an inadvertence on the part of the legislator where another explanation, consonant with the language used by the Statute, is possible. In this case, the two provisions can be reconciled, because the terms “complicity” and “accomplice” may encompass conduct broader than that of aiding and abetting.630 Given the Statute’s express statement in Article 7(1) that liability for genocide under Article 4 may attach through the mode of aiding and abetting, Radislav Krstić’s responsibility is properly characterized as that of aiding and abetting genocide.631

623 Ibid., para. 290.624 Ibid., para. 378.625 Indictment, paras. 21 - 26. The Appeals Chamber notes that there was ample discussion on the issue

of aiding and abetting versus complicity to genocide during the Appeals hearing, in response to ques-tions posed by the bench. T 431- 437.

626 Trial Judgement, paras. 642 – 644.627 See ibid., para. 640; see also Semanza Trial Judgement, paras. 394 - 395 & n. 655.628 See Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 531; Stakić Decision on Rule 98 Bis Motion for Judgement of

Acquittal, para. 47; Semanza Trial Judgement, paras. 394 – 395.629 See Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 531; Stakić Decision on Rule 98 Bis Motion for Judgement of Ac-

quittal, para. 47.630 See Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 70 (“The Appeals Chamber notes first of all that, in the

case-law of the Tribunal … this term ₣accompliceğ has different meanings depending on the context and may refer to a co-perpetrator or an aider and abettor.”) (citing Tadić Appeal Judgement, paras. 220, 229).

631 In this Appeal, the Appeals Chamber is concerned solely with the application to Article 4(3) of only

199[…]144. The Appeals Chamber’s examination of Radislav Krstić’s participation in the crime of genocide has implications for his criminal responsibility for the murders of the Bosnian Muslim civilians under Article 3, violations of the laws or customs of war, and for extermination and persecution under Article 5, all of which arise from the executions of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica between 13 and 19 July 1995. As the preceding factual examination has established, there was no evidence that Krstić ordered any of these murders, or that he directly participated in them. All the evidence can establish is that he knew that those murders were occurring and that he permitted the Main Staff to use personnel and resources under his command to facilitate them. In these circumstances the criminal responsibility of Radislav Krstić is that of an aider and abettor to the murders, extermination and persecution, and not of a principal co-perpetrator.

F. Radislav Krstić’s Criminal Responsibility for the Opportunistic Crimes Committed at Potočari

145. The Defense also contests the findings of the Trial Chamber in relation to Krstić’s criminal responsibility for the crimes committed on 12 and 13 July 1995 at Potočari. The Trial Chamber found that Radislav Krstić was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to forcibly remove the Bosnian Muslim civilians from Potočari, and so incurred criminal responsibility for the murders, beatings and abuses committed there as natural and foreseeable consequences of that joint criminal enterprise. The Defense argues that these crimes were not natural and foreseeable consequences of the ethnic cleansing campaign, and that the Trial Chamber’s finding that Krstić was aware of them is contrary to the presumption of innocence.[…]151. The Defense further asserts that Radislav Krstić should not be found guilty with respect to the crimes committed at Potočari on 12 and 13 July 1995 because General Živanović was Commander of the Drina Corps until 13 July 1995.632 This argument is inapposite. The responsibility of Radislav Krstić for the crimes committed at Potočari arose from his individual participation in a joint criminal enterprise to forcibly transfer civilians. The opportunistic crimes were natural and foreseeable consequences of that joint criminal enterprise. His conviction for these crimes does not depend upon the rank Krstić held in the Drina Corps staff at the time of their commission. Radislav Krstić’s appeal against his convictions for the opportunistic crimes that occurred at Potočari as a natural and foreseeable consequence of his participation in the joint criminal enterprise to forcibly transfer is dismissed.[…]

one mode of liability deriving from Article 7(1), that of aiding and abetting. The Appeals Chamber expresses no opinion regarding other modes of liability listed in Article 7(1).

632 Defense Appeal Brief, para. 208.

200VI. SENTENCING

234. The Trial Chamber imposed on Radislav Krstić a single sentence of 46 years’ imprisonment.633 Both the Prosecution and the Defense have appealed this sentence.634

A. Submissions

235. The Prosecution argues that the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber was inadequate because it failed properly to account either for the gravity of the crimes committed or for the participation of Radislav Krstić in those crimes;635 is inconsistent with ICTR jurisprudence in comparable genocide cases;636 is based on Krstić’s “palpably lesser guilt”;637 and because the Trial Chamber erred in finding that premeditation was inapplicable as an aggravating factor in this case.638 Consequently, the Prosecution argues that the Trial Chamber imposed a sentence beyond its discretion,639

and that the sentence should be increased to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 30 years.640

236. The Defense argues that in imposing the sentence, the Trial Chamber failed to have due regard to the sentencing practice of the former Yugoslavia and the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina641 and to give adequate weight to what the Defense submits are mitigating circumstances.642 The Defense accordingly argues that the sentence should be reduced to a maximum of 20 years.643

[…]

C. The Appeals Chamber’s Considerations

266. The Appeals Chamber decides that the sentence must be adjusted due to the fact that it has found Radislav Krstić responsible as an aider and abettor to genocide and to murders as a violation of the laws or customs of war committed between 13 and 19 July 1995, instead of as a co-perpetrator, as found by the Trial Chamber. In accordance with its power to do so without remitting the matter to the Trial Chamber,644

the Appeals Chamber proceeds with the adjustment of Krstić’s sentence in light of its findings, and in accordance with the requirements of the Statute and the Rules.[…]

633 Trial Judgement, para. 726.634 See Annex A, Procedural Background.635 Prosecution Appeal Brief, section 4(A).636 Ibid., section 4(B).637 Trial Judgement, para. 724, Prosecution Appeal Brief, section 4(C).638 Trial Judgement, paras. 711 - 712, Prosecution Appeal Brief, section 4(D).639 Prosecution Appeal Brief, para. 2.2, citing the test established in the Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement.640 Ibid., paras. 5.2 - 5.3.641 Defense Response to Prosecution Appeal Brief, paras. 38 - 50; Trial Judgement, para. 697.642 Trial Judgement, paras. 713 - 716, Defence Response to Prosecution Appeal Brief, para. 99.643 Defense Response to Prosecution Appeal Brief, para. 100.644 Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 181.

201271. The Trial Chamber has considered the individual circumstances of Radislav Krstić, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Defense submits that the Trial Chamber erred in not according any weight in sentencing to Krstić’s poor health, his good personal character, his clear record to date,645 and his cooperation with the Tribunal and contribution to reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia.646 The Appeals Chamber adopts the Trial Chamber’s findings as to these factors, and concludes that they do not constitute mitigating circumstances in the context of this case. The Appeals Chamber also concludes that no aggravating factors are present in this case.

272. The Appeals Chamber believes, however, that four further factors must be accounted for in mitigation of Krstić’s sentence, namely: (i) the nature of his provision of the Drina Corps assets and resources; (ii) the fact that he had only recently assumed command of the Corps during combat operations; (iii) the fact that he was present in and around the Potočari for at most two hours; and (iv) his written order to treat Muslims humanely.273. First, while Radislav Krstić made a substantial contribution to the realization of the genocidal plan and to the murder of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, his actual involvement in facilitating the use of Drina Corps personnel and assets under his command was a limited one. Second, while the Appeals Chamber has found that Krstić assumed command of the Drina Corps on 13 July 1995, it accepts that the recent nature of his appointment, coupled with his preoccupation with conducting ongoing combat operations in the region around Žepa, meant that his personal impact on the events described was further limited. Third, Krstić was present in and around the Potočari compound during the afternoon of 12 July 1995 for at most two hours,647 a period which, the Appeals Chamber finds, is sufficiently brief so as to justify a mitigation of sentence.648 Finally, as discussed above,649 Radislav Krstić made efforts to ensure the safety of the Bosnian Muslim civilians transported out of Potočari, he issued an order that no harm befall civilians while guaranteeing their safe transportation out of the Srebrenica area, and he showed similar concerns for the Bosnian Muslim civilians during the Žepa campaign. Krstić’s personal integrity as a serious career military officer who would ordinarily not have been associated with such a plan at all, is also a factor in mitigation.[…]275. The Appeals Chamber finds that Radislav Krstić is responsible for very serious violations of international humanitarian law. The crime of genocide, in particular, is universally viewed as an especially grievous and reprehensible violation. In the light of the circumstances of this case, as well as the nature of the grave crimes Radislav Krstić has aided and abetted or committed, the Appeals Chamber, taking into account the principle of proportionality, considers that the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber should be reduced to 35 years.

645 Defense Response to Prosecution Appeal Brief, para. 69.646 Ibid., para.72.647 See para. 82, supra.648 See para. 272, supra.649 See para. 132, supra.

202VII. DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, THE APPEALS CHAMBER

PURSUANT to Article 25 of the Statute and Rules 117 and 118 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

NOTING the respective written submissions of the parties and the arguments they presented at the hearings of 26 and 27 November 2003;

SITTING in open session;

SETS ASIDE, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, Radislav Krstić’s conviction as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide (Count 1), and FINDS, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, Radislav Krstić guilty of aiding and abetting genocide;

RESOLVES that the Trial Chamber incorrectly disallowed Radislav Krstić’s convictions as a participant in extermination and persecution (Counts 3 and 6) committed between 13 and 19 July 1995, but that his level of responsibility was that of an aider and abettor in extermination and persecution as crimes against humanity;

SETS ASIDE, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, Radislav Krstić’s conviction as a participant in murder under Article 3 (Count 5) committed between 13 and 19 July 1995, and FINDS, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, Radislav Krstić guilty of aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war;

AFFIRMS Radislav Krstić’s convictions as a participant in murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war (Count 5) and in persecution (Count 6) committed between 10 and 13 July 1995 in Potočari;

DISMISSES the Defense and the Prosecution appeals concerning Radislav Krstić’s convictions in all other respects;

DISMISSES the Defense and the Prosecution appeals against Radislav Krstić’s sentence and IMPOSES a new sentence, taking into account Radislav Krstić’s responsibility as established on appeal;

SENTENCES Radislav Krstić to 35 years’ imprisonment to run as of this day, subject to credit being given under Rule 101(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the period Radislav Krstić has already spent in detention, that is from 3 December 1998 to the present day;

ORDERS, in accordance with Rules 103(C) and 107 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, that Radislav Krstić is to remain in the custody of the Tribunal pending the finalization of arrangements for his transfer to the State where his sentence will be served.

Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative.

203

Judge Theodor Meron

PresidingJudge Fausto PocarJudge Mohamed ShahabuddeenJudge Mehmet Güney Judge Wolfgang Schomburg Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen appends a partial dissenting opinion.

Dated this 19th day of April 2004

At The Hague, The Netherlands

[SEAL OF THE TRIBUNAL]

Edited by: Dzevad Mahmutovic, L.L.D.